Process List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers very little. "List" implies a read-only operation but never confirms it, and nothing is said about ordering, whether the list is a snapshot or live, what fields each process entry contains, or whether the default limit of 20 truncates output.

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 three-word phrase with zero waste and the resource front-loaded, which fits the terse style of the sibling set. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than true crispness.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call correctly: an agent knows to pass limit or omit it. It still leaves the shape of the returned process records (PID, name, CPU/memory columns) unstated, so an agent cannot predict output without invoking it.

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% and the single optional parameter (limit, default 20) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about ordering or truncation semantics for that limit, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 running processes"), which an agent can immediately distinguish from the network-oriented siblings like ss_connections or netstat_connections. It does not, however, contrast itself with the adjacent host-metrics tools (cpu_usage, memory_usage, system_status), so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 call this versus cpu_usage, memory_usage, or system_status, and no statement of exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is the diagnostics entry point for enumerating processes on the host.

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