processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (CPU, memory, PID) and a key behavioral nuance: omitting the name returns top processes by CPU. It does not mention permissions or edge cases, but the read-only nature is implied by 'List', and the description provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence contributes either purpose, use case, or a usage tip. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with three optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it lists, when to use it, and a behavioral default. It lacks explicit output format, but the schema fills in parameter details. Slightly more could be said about return shape, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a parameter-specific nugget (omitting 'name' yields top processes by CPU) that enriches the schema's default value documentation. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'running Windows processes' and explicitly names the returned attributes (CPU usage, memory, PID). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'capture' or 'list_windows' by focusing on process details. The intended use for diagnosing performance issues is also explicit.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('diagnosing performance issues or checking if a specific app/service is running') and offers a usage tip ('Omit name to get the top processes by CPU'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide selection.

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