rad_list_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description's 'local Windows' wording corroborates the closed-world scope but adds little. It says nothing about ordering, whether all processes are returned, or how the name_contains filter changes results.

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 resource and return fields, followed by the one actionable constraint. 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?

Output schema and annotations carry the return shape and safety profile, so the description needn't cover those. However, for a tool with a filtering parameter, omitting any mention of filtering leaves an agent unaware of a capability it can use.

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?

There is one optional parameter (name_contains) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions that filtering is possible or how it matches. Because the schema provides no semantics, the description was the only place to explain this and it does not.

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 set: list local Windows PIDs, executable names and parent PIDs, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The phrase 'before attaching' distinguishes it from the mutation/attach siblings, though it never names rad_attach or rad_list_sessions explicitly.

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?

'Select the exact application PID before attaching' gives a clear usage context and sequencing constraint. It does not state exclusions or name the alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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