Read Process Maps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the underlying resource is a proc maps file; it discloses nothing about permission requirements, filter behavior, or output size limits beyond what the schema defaults imply.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly why parameter semantics suffer.

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?

A five-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema should explain the filtering parameters and default behavior; the description covers none of that. It is too thin for the tool's surface area, even accounting for the rich annotations.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate and does not. The word 'filter' hints at 'contains' and 'max_lines', but neither is explained, and 'pid' has no description at all despite being the only required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb pair (read/filter) and a precise resource (/proc/<pid>/maps) on a Sailfish OS device. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like sailfish_device_journal or sailfish_device_topmost_pid, though the description never names an alternative to disambiguate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., requires a running device or root access to inspect other processes' maps). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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