process_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the data returned but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. For a list tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks explicit transparency about side effects or permissions.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists the output fields. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (fields shown). For a simple list tool with no parameters, this is sufficient. Missing details like pagination or filtering are not critical for basic usage.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not needed. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds value by specifying the output fields, but that is not parameter-related.

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 purpose: 'List all managed processes and their status'. It specifies the fields shown (process ID, command, status, PID, start time), distinguishing it from siblings like process_stop or process_logs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, if an agent needs to stop a process or view logs, the description does not indicate that other tools should be used. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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