check_process

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing specific behavioral traits: return fields (PID, CPU%, RAM, etc.), truncation of command lines at 120 chars, the full_command_line override, result cap at 10, and ordering (windowed first). This provides rich behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main purpose, followed by filter usage, return fields, and behavior notes. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff. Highly efficient.

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 explains the return values (PID, CPU%, RAM, title, command line, start time) and edge behaviors (truncation, cap). However, it does not specify what happens when no matching process is found (e.g., return null vs. empty list), which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is mostly complete for this tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds examples ('python', 'ffmpeg', 'RENDER VIDEO 02') and clarifies the combined use ('and/or') and the full_command_line behavior, but these are more about usage context than core parameter meaning. The schema already documents each parameter effectively.

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's function: 'Check if a process is running on the user's Windows machine — no screenshot.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('process'), and scope (running on Windows). It also distinguishes itself from visual tools by explicitly noting 'no screenshot'.

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 indicates clear usage context: checking a process by name fragment and/or window title, with examples. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is apparent, especially given sibling tools like list_processes and list_windows. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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