list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the read-only guarantee and explicitly rules out start/stop/signal operations, and it lists the return fields (pid, name, username, cpu%, memory%, status). It omits auth requirements, pagination, and host-scope details, but the core safety and output profile is clearly communicated.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args/Returns structure is exactly what is needed given the absence of an output schema and parameter descriptions.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: mutation boundaries, parameter constraints, and return fields. Remaining gaps are minor – it does not clarify whether the host is local or remote, nor any pagination or permission model.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: limit is documented as a max count with an explicit 1-200 range, and sort_by is given allowed values ('cpu' or 'memory') plus the descending sort order. Both parameters gain meaning not present in the bare schema.

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 on the host') and immediately scopes the operation as read-only, which distinguishes it from mutation-oriented process tools and from sibling info tools like get_cpu_info or get_system_info. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical 'cannot start, stop, or signal anything' gives a clear when-not boundary, implying this is not for process control. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over get_system_info/get_cpu_info, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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