Get Process Info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses what data is retrieved, but omits whether the call is read-only (obvious from 'get' but unstated), what happens if the pid does not exist or requires elevation, and any cost implication of gathering open files and network connections on a live process.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a dense, scannable field list; no filler or restatement of the title. Slightly terse as a fragment, but every token carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read. However, the description does not mention the optional include_env switch, which materially changes the response and carries a secrets risk, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool this simple.

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 50%: include_env is documented in the schema, including its secrecy risk, while pid has no description. The description reinforces single-pid semantics ('one pid') but says nothing about include_env or how environment data relates to the listed output fields.

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?

States a specific retrieval ("Detailed info for one pid") plus an enumerated payload of return categories (exe, cmdline, cwd, threads, memory, cpu times, open files, network connections). That clearly separates it from siblings such as get_memory_info, get_cpu_usage or process_tree, though it never names those tools explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by scope: 'for one pid' tells the agent this is single-process inspection rather than hierarchy or system-wide data. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to process_tree, get_memory_info or find_windows_by_process as alternatives for related tasks.

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