get_processes_by_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the operation as read-only (getting processes), includes pagination (page, page_size with defaults and max), sorting (sort_by, sort_order), and return format (JSON string). It does not mention destructive actions, auth, or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read tool.

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 structured with Args and Returns, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value (defaults, categories, sort details). Minor redundancy: 'JSON string containing paginated and sorted process information' could be condensed, but overall efficient.

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 5 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, defaults, return format, and behavioral constraints (max page size). It lacks edge cases (e.g., empty results, error handling), but completeness is high for a paginated list tool.

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%, so the description provides all parameter details. It explains process_type values ('cpu', 'memory', 'network'), page defaults, page_size max, sort_by options with per-category specifics, and sort_order choices. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 'Get all processes filtered by category (cpu, memory, network) with pagination and sorting support.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('processes'), and the categories distinguish it from siblings like 'get_resource_intensive_processes' and 'get_system_overview'.

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 (processes by category) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It mentions 'filtered by category' but provides no guidance on alternatives (e.g., 'use get_resource_intensive_processes for high-usage processes'). Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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