List Processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by noting platform-specific commands (tasklist/ps) and the return structure (PID, name, memory), which are not captured in annotations.

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, using bullet-style sections for args and returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The note about platform commands is useful, though the Args/Returns formatting could be slightly more streamlined.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 optional param, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, return format, and platform specifics. There is no output schema, so the returns section is helpful.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, and the description adds the same description as in the schema. The description does not explain the format of the filter string (e.g., wildcards, exact match), so it does not add significant meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool 'lists running system processes', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also mentions the optional filter and cross-platform behavior. However, it does not differentiate itself directly from sibling tools like 'fc_kill_process' or 'fc_start_process', though the use case is distinct enough.

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 implies usage for listing processes, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., for detailed info). The 'Returns' section hints at what to expect, but no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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