process_file_descriptors

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 discloses that the tool 'requires lsof,' indicating a dependency or prerequisite, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other traits like whether it's read-only, potential side effects, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and application without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a diagnostic tool with a dependency), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite ('requires lsof'), but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error scenarios. For a tool in this context, more information would be beneficial to fully guide an agent.

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 the 'pid' parameter clearly documented as 'Process ID.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate with extra semantics.

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's purpose: 'List open files and sockets for a process.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('open files and sockets'), and distinguishes it from siblings like process_list or process_info by focusing on file descriptors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like process_ports or network_connections, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Debug file handle leaks.' It implies usage for diagnostic purposes related to file descriptor issues. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as process_ports for network connections or file_read for file content, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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