list-processes

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

The description states 'List running processes', indicating a read operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention auth requirements, side effects, or the scope of processes (e.g., all hosts vs current host). The example 'process list for host' implies host filtering, but no host parameter exists, which could be misleading.

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 a single concise sentence followed by a list of three concrete example use cases. Every part is informative without redundancy, and the examples are front-loaded for quick understanding. 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 explains the core function and provides examples, but given the tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, more detail is needed. It omits what is returned, the default scope (e.g., all processes on the current host?), and how pagination works. The sibling list includes many similar list tools, so differentiation could be stronger.

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 schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already details each parameter. The description adds value by highlighting the primary filter capabilities ('search term or tags'), but does not explain time range or pagination parameters. This provides marginal additional context beyond schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('List'), resource ('running processes'), and scope ('with optional filtering by search term or tags'). Examples like 'what processes are running' and 'find java processes' further clarify the function, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list-containers or list-hosts.

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 includes practical example queries ('what processes are running', 'find java processes', 'process list for host'), which implicitly guide when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using get-hosts for host-level information.

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