get_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. While 'Listar' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether this requires elevated privileges, potential rate limits, what specific 'información de uso' includes, or how results are formatted. For a system monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps.

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, efficient Spanish sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying what the tool does.

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 listing tool with comprehensive parameter documentation (100% schema coverage) but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, output format, and differentiation from similar tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more information about what 'información de uso' includes and how results are structured.

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 100% description coverage with clear documentation for both parameters (limit and sort_by), including defaults, constraints, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 ('Listar') and resource ('procesos del sistema') with additional context about what information is included ('con información de uso'). It distinguishes this tool from most siblings that handle text, files, URLs, or other system info, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other system monitoring tools like get_cpu_info or get_memory_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from similar system monitoring tools like get_cpu_info, get_memory_info, or get_system_info that might provide overlapping functionality.

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