running_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the output is an abbreviated form of ps -A, hinting at filtered output, but says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, side effects, or what fields are omitted. The single behavioral clue is weak given the complete absence of annotation support.

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 a single ~12-word sentence that front-loads the core fact ('list of running processes') and wastes no words. The parenthetical 'ps -A abbreviated' adds useful grounding without bloat. It is efficient, though it also conveys very little information overall.

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 simple list-type tool with an output schema present, the core purpose is adequately covered — an agent knows what the tool returns at a high level. However, the unexplained 'serial' parameter, the undefined scope of 'abbreviated', and the total absence of annotations leave meaningful gaps in what an agent needs to invoke it confidently. It is minimally viable but not 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 single parameter 'serial' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. An agent must infer from the parameter name and device context that it likely selects the target device by serial number. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap, though the parameter is optional with a null default, which slightly mitigates the risk.

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, Hungarian for 'List of currently running processes on the device (ps -A abbreviated)', states a specific verb and resource: it lists processes, not apps or device info, which implicitly differentiates it from siblings like list_apps and device_info. The concrete 'ps -A' anchor makes the scope unambiguous. It loses a point only for not explicitly contrasting with sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_apps, app_info, or foreground_app. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated. The description is purely definitional and leaves all routing decisions to the agent.

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