Everything about one process

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that this is an aggregation across six distinct data domains, but says nothing about cost, depth of traversal, or result size for what is clearly a fan-out query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the returned domains with no filler. It is terse to the point of being a fragment, but every word carries information and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description's enumeration of the six returned data domains is what tells the agent what the result looks like, which fills the main gap. For a one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, little else is required; only traversal depth and result-size expectations are missing.

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 100% and the single pid parameter is self-documented. The description confirms the singular scope ('one process id'), matching the schema but adding no format, range, or identity semantics beyond it; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('one process id') and enumerates the returned data domains (signature, ancestry, children, connections, findings, autostarts). This is far more informative than the title 'Everything about one process', though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_findings or list_connections.

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?

Usage is implied: 'for one process id' signals this is the single-process drill-down aggregating what the list_* siblings return individually. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement or routing to alternatives for callers who only need one category.

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