overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, classifies processes, collapses duplicates, and flags monitoring software. It does not disclose potential performance impacts or authorization requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise with three sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second details functionality, and the third gives output presentation advice. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and output usage. An output schema exists, so details about return structure are not required. It could briefly mention the format of the overview, but completeness is good.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter info. The schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no param details, which is appropriate.

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 it provides a friendly overview of all running processes on the Mac, classifying them into types and collapsing duplicates. This distinguishes it from siblings like raw_inventory (unfiltered list) or explain_process (individual process).

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 targets users who don't understand processes, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It also provides presentational guidance (type counts first, then flags). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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