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. It adequately signals a read-only operation through the verb 'List' and discloses the returned fields, but it does not mention permissions, whether all system processes are visible, or potential platform-specific behavior. This is acceptable for a simple listing tool but leaves some uncertainty.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the key output attributes, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter listing tool, the description plus schema covers the essential call information: what it lists, what it returns, and how to filter/limit. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by naming the return fields. Minor gaps such as sorting, units for memory, and scope of processes are not critical for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both limit and filter_name. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as how the filter matches or what 'limit' applies to. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('running processes'), and the output fields (PID, name, memory). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like kill_process and list_active_ports because it identifies exactly what is being listed.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kill_process or list_active_ports. The description implies process inspection but does not mention context, limitations, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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