list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only adds the dev-related filter. It does not state what information is returned, whether this is a one-time snapshot or continuous monitoring, or whether any side effects occur. The word 'monitor' could mislead an agent expecting ongoing observation.

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 sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. It contains no filler and every word adds meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to explain what the returned process list looks like or how 'monitor' differs from a simple list, leaving a gap for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not responsible for documenting parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies per the rubric for no-parameter tools.

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 uses 'Monitor running system processes,' which clearly indicates a listing/observation action on system processes. The parenthetical scope '(node, php, python)' distinguishes this from generic system tools like system_info. However, 'monitor' is slightly less precise than 'list,' though the tool name resolves this.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kill_process or system_info. The description only implies a use case of checking development-related processes, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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