list_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether this is read-only, which processes are listed (host, container, system), whether results are filtered or paginated, or what the output contains. Only the weak implication of 'list' suggests a non-mutating read.

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?

Two words, fully front-loaded, with zero filler. For a zero-parameter tool this is appropriate, though it is terse to the point of omitting any scoping context.

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 tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must supply the missing context itself — and it supplies none. An agent cannot tell which process namespace is queried or what a result looks like, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 defines zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and none are missing.

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 phrase "List processes" names a clear verb (list) and resource (processes), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name itself and does not distinguish this tool from related siblings like kill_process or the container/system monitoring tools. It is minimum-viable rather than informative.

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, what scope of processes it covers, or how it relates to alternatives such as kill_process. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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