why_process_will_not_end

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the process is 'only read about, not opened' and details the diagnostic checks, which usefully clarifies that no handle is opened and what categories of answers to expect. It stops short of discussing performance or permissions, but that is minor given the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core question and then enumerates the specific checks in a compact list. It is dense but every clause contributes diagnostic meaning, and the closing sentence reinforces the read-only nature without waste.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what the tool determines and explicitly states it does not open the process. Annotations handle safety, so no important behavioral or usage information is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The single pid parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The process ID.' The description refers to 'a process' but adds no format, range, or handling details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise diagnostic purpose: explaining why a process persists, enumerating zombie/parent status, kernel wait, whether Anabolic may end it, and whether it is a system process. This is highly specific and distinguishes it from general process-listing or termination tools, though it does not name a sibling 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?

The phrasing 'Why a process does not go away' implies the use case, but the description does not state when to choose this over get_process or end_process, nor does it list exclusions. The usage context is clear but alternatives are left to inference.

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