scan_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the technology used (Java Agent injection), what components are scanned, and that results list suspicious class names. It doesn't discuss side effects or safety, but as a diagnostic tool, the description is sufficiently 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 well-structured: purpose, command, detection targets, then argument list. It's informative without being overly verbose, though some redundancy could be trimmed. Each sentence contributes to understanding.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, SSH support, output), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, what it scans, all parameters, and the return format. With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return structure further.

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 compensates by listing all 8 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., pid, tools_dir, SSH options). It adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, though some details (like valid pid range) 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 it executes a memory shell detection scan on a Java process, detailing the types of memory shells detected (Servlet, Spring, Agent, etc.). It is distinct from siblings like 'remove_memory_shell' or 'list_java_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 when to use the tool (to scan a Java process for memory shells) and provides the underlying command. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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