list_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the sorting behavior and the reported metrics, but does not state whether this is a point-in-time snapshot, whether it covers all users' processes, or whether elevated permissions are needed. This is adequate but has clear 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, tight sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key details about output and ordering.

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 operation with two self-documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient. However, the lack of an output schema and annotations leaves some ambiguity about exact return fields and process visibility scope, though this is a minor gap for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'limit' and 'sortBy' already documented including defaults and enum values. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond implying that sorting relates to resource consumption, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('running processes'), and the data returned ('CPU and memory usage'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also clearly differentiated from siblings like get_system_resources and get_network_connections, which target different resources.

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 this tool is appropriate: inspecting running processes and their resource consumption. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling names make the distinction apparent, and the intended use is unambiguous.

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