list_java_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists processes (implying read-only) but does not mention potential side effects like performance impact or Java dependency. The behavior is partially clear but not fully transparent.

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 a brief intro, command explanation, purpose, and parameter list. It is reasonably concise, though the inclusion of both Chinese and English adds some verbosity.

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 the complexity of 7 parameters and no required ones, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks error handling details and dependencies like required Java installation, but is largely complete.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, but the description compensates by listing all 7 parameters with their purpose in an Args section. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though some parameter details (e.g., constraints) are missing.

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 tool executes a specific jar to list all running Java processes, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_process by indicating it is a preliminary step for selecting target processes.

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 explains the tool is used before memory shell scanning and provides context for SSH usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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