process_list

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds valuable behavior context by stating the output fields (pid, user, CPU%, MEM%, command) and the filtering/sorting/limit capabilities, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise parameter summary and return specification. There is no filler, repetitive annotation, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and detailed schema descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the resource, supported operations, and return content. It omits explicit alternative-tool routing, but that gap is captured under usage guidelines and does not block 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 description lists all parameter names and the sort_by allowed values, but it adds little meaning beyond the input schema, which already provides detailed descriptions for filter, limit, sort_by, host, and response_format. The schema supplies the semantic weight, so the description's contribution is marginal but not absent.

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 identifies the operation: listing running processes ('Futo folyamatok listaja') and distinguishes it from typical siblings like cpu_usage or memory_usage by specifying the resource as the full process list. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings such as system_status, cpu_usage, or memory_usage. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'list of running processes'.

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