get_process

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: 'Nothing is injected; its files in /proc are only read', and the note that ancestors are named even after they exited. It stops short of disclosing cost or what happens for an invalid/reused pid.

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 the core claim first ('One process in full') followed by a scoped enumeration, plus a short safety sentence. The list is long but every item names a distinct returned data class rather than padding, so it earns its length despite being dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating what comes back. It lacks only failure behavior (unknown/zombie pid) and performance expectations for a tool that inspects many /proc surfaces.

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 100% and the single pid parameter is documented in-schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'One process in full' and then enumerates the exact resource contents (counters, files, ancestry, connections, growth trends), which clearly separates it from list_processes or get_process_tree. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is by implication rather than by direct contrast.

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: an agent can infer this is the deep-dive-for-a-single-pid tool, but nothing states when to prefer it over get_process_tree, list_processes, get_thread_stacks or get_leaks, nor any cost/cadence guidance for what is clearly a heavy lookup. No when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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