process_info

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or output format. With an output schema present, the description should elaborate on what to expect.

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 extremely short ('Kali Agent MCP tool: process_info'), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks valuable front-loaded information and wastes an opportunity to be useful.

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?

Given that the tool has a single parameter and an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It could at least mention what types of process information are returned, but it provides no context whatsoever.

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 schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. While 'pid' is self-explanatory, the description does not clarify its role or any constraints, falling short for a low-coverage scenario.

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 simply restates the tool name without specifying what information is retrieved about the process. It is a tautology, lacking details such as memory, CPU, status, or any specific data returned.

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 use this tool versus similar siblings like process_list or process_tree. No context or conditions for appropriate invocation are provided.

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