list_processes_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not describe the return format (e.g., PID, command name), or mention any potential side effects or permission requirements. It only hints at filtering, which is insufficient for transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundant or irrelevant content. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple, it has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return value contains (e.g., process names, PIDs). It also lacks context about when this tool is useful (e.g., before killing a process). The description is minimal and leaves the agent without essential information for effective 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (filter and maxResults), with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only broadly mentioning 'filtering options'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 clearly states the tool lists running processes and mentions filtering options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files_code (files) and kill_process_code (process management). The verb 'list' and resource 'running processes' are specific and unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kill_process_code or get_system_info_code. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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