Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., process IDs, names, statuses), whether it's real-time or cached, or any limitations like rate constraints. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information ('List all running processes'). It efficiently conveys the essential action and scope without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns process data. It doesn't explain the return format, such as whether it's a list, table, or structured object, or what fields are included. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('running processes started by the agent'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'docker_containers' or 'run_command' that might also show processes, though the 'started by the agent' qualifier provides some implicit distinction.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'started by the agent,' suggesting this tool is for monitoring the agent's own processes rather than system-wide ones. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like checking system logs or other monitoring tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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