process_explain

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It ensures the tool is non-destructive by stating it never terminates processes, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like required permissions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a critical behavioral note in the second sentence. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only explain tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, included evidence, and safety guarantee. However, the omission of parameter details and any context about permissions or output format leaves it somewhat incomplete, especially given the absence of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to mention either parameter (pid or include_command_line). It does not explain that pid is required or what include_command_line controls, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool explains a single PID with ownership evidence, host/tool profiles, reasons, blockers, and cleanup eligibility. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'It never terminates processes,' differentiating it from cleanup tools like process_cleanup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for getting an explanation of a process, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like managed_process_explain or process_cleanup_candidates. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or context for preference among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.