explain_process

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the resolution order (monitoring signature → common benign catalog → returns unknown) and guarantees it always answers something useful. This gives insight into behavior without revealing internal details, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage context, then behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the clear explanation of input and behavior, the description is fully complete. It does not need to explain return values as the output schema covers that.

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 a single string parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description adds significant value by explaining that the name comes from Activity Monitor, providing concrete examples (WindowServer, EasyConnect, GoogleSoftwareUpdate), and clarifying it can be a process, launchd label, or bundle ID.

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 'explain' and the resource 'one process / launchd label / bundle id' in plain language. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_signatures and raw_inventory by specifying that it explains a single item, not lists or scans.

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 explicitly targets non-technical users pasting a single name from Activity Monitor, providing usage context and resolution order. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or recommend alternatives among siblings, though it is implied.

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