list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are capped by a default limit of 50, which is genuinely useful, but never states that this is a read-only/non-destructive operation and doesn't flag that hitting the limit silently truncates results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a short use-case line and a compact Args block. The Args section slightly duplicates the schema's defaults but earns its place by adding the case-insensitive/substring semantics.

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 description isn't needed, and both parameters are explained despite 0% schema coverage. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of side effects, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: filter_name is documented as a case-insensitive substring matched against either process name or cmdline, and limit as a maximum with a stated default. Only the boundary behavior of limit (truncation, not error) is left implicit.

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 verb and resource ('List running OS processes') plus the optional filtering dimension. An agent can immediately distinguish it from mutation siblings like start_process and kill_process without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete motivating scenarios (checking for IDE serial monitors, minicom, screen, openocd, gdb, emulators), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives — notably find_port_occupiers, which overlaps for the serial-port case — and offers no when-not guidance.

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