list_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the filter (visible windows) and the return fields (pid, process_name, title, responding, memory_mb), which adds useful context. However, it does not mention side effects (none obvious for a list operation), permission requirements, or whether it snapshots live data. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place, and it is easily scannable.

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?

For a simple, no-argument tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the filter and the output structure. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_windows', and there is no mention of platform or process scope (e.g., user vs system processes). Given the simplicity and the existence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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, and the input schema is an empty object. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4 since no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not attempt to explain any parameters, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly specifies the resource ('running processes') with a qualifier ('that have visible windows'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_windows', which focuses on windows rather than process-level data. It also lists the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention list_windows or other sibling tools, nor does it provide context such as 'use this for process memory usage' or 'use list_windows for window titles'. The only implied usage is from the verb 'list'.

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