list_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Does not modify system state,' which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also mentions the sorting by CPU and the limit with max 200. However, it does not disclose any potential performance implications or permission requirements, which might be relevant for a system inspection 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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence conveys the main functionality, the second provides usage context, and the third states a safety property. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 that there is an output schema (context signal), the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and the single parameter. The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects), so the description is complete for an agent to call it appropriately.

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. It explains that the tool is 'Limited to `limit` entries (max 200),' giving functional meaning to the limit parameter beyond the schema's type and default. The default of 50 is left to the schema, which is acceptable since the schema provides it.

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 the verb and resource: 'Returns a list of running processes sorted by CPU usage, showing PID, name, CPU%, memory%, and status.' It further clarifies the purpose with 'when investigating which processes are consuming the most resources,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage or get_process_info.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when investigating which processes are consuming the most resources,' providing a clear context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling list and the tool's purpose make the appropriate usage clear.

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