process_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation, which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose details like output structure, permission requirements, or whether it returns a snapshot, which would be valuable for an agent. The absence of these details is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 with no redundant or irrelevant information. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 output schema, so the description should at least indicate what information is returned. It says 'List running processes' but does not specify fields like PID, memory, or command name. While the tool is simple, this missing detail makes the description only minimally complete for an agent expecting clear return value documentation.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with an empty schema, there is nothing to explain. The clarity of the tool's purpose compensates for the lack of parameter details.

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 tool's function: 'List running processes on the router.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('running processes'), and the scope ('on the router') adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_list, which lists services rather than processes.

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 inspecting running processes but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as system_info or service_list. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and simple description.

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