process_list

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 query is a literal substring (not regex) and provides an example. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention other traits like read-only nature, but that is implied by 'list'.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and provides a critical constraint immediately. Every part is necessary and no words are wasted.

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?

The description lists output fields (pid, name) and explains query behavior. It lacks details on limit behavior or whether the list is complete, but the schema provides the default limit. For a simple listing tool with no output schema, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 67% (limit and query have descriptions, udid does not). The description adds significant value for the query parameter by clarifying it is a literal substring and not regex, which reduces ambiguity. It does not add info for udid or limit, but the schema already covers limit's default.

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 it lists device processes with pid and name. The verb 'list' and resource 'device processes' are specific. No sibling tool performs a similar function, so it is well-differentiated.

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 notes 'advanced' and gives a query constraint but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on conditions that would make this tool inappropriate.

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