List Processes

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotated detail: results are bounded and command lines/environment variables are deliberately excluded, which matters for both volume and sensitivity expectations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the exclusion statement earns its place by preventing a common misuse. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key scoping facts (bounded, no command lines/env vars). Only the parameter's default/meaning is left unaddressed.

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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter has no description beyond a 1-200 integer range. The word 'bounded' gestures at the cap but does not explain what limit controls (count of processes returned, default value, or behavior when omitted). Marginal value over the schema.

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 and resource ('List ... local processes') plus the scope qualifier 'bounded number' and the metadata class ('basic resource metadata'). It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling inspect_process, which is the natural alternative for detailed process data, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that command lines and environment variables are not returned hints that inspect_process is the tool for that detail, but neither that sibling nor any when-to-use/when-not condition is named. An agent must infer the routing.

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