get_process_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and succeeds. It discloses read-only but heavy behavior, walks /proc and reads smaps for every process, ignores per-process errors, and fails only when the process list cannot be read. This is rich, honest behavioral information with no contradictions.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cost warning, error behavior, and alternative guidance. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return details need not be in the description. The description covers purpose, sort and limit options, performance impact, failure semantics, and a sibling alternative, making it complete for this tool's moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit and sort_by defaults and allowed values. The description restates the defaults and adds the rationale to keep the limit low, but it does not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Returns running processes sortable by CPU, memory, or both,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_top_io_processes by directing disk I/O ranking to that tool, so the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states 'Prefer get_top_io_processes for disk I/O ranking,' giving a direct alternative. It also advises 'keep limit low' due to heavy reading, indicating how to use the tool safely and when to consider a different tool.

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