List Guest Processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only listing action and an authentication requirement, but it does not explicitly state that no guest state is modified, nor does it disclose failure conditions such as needing VMware Tools to be running.

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 consists of two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite in a clear second sentence. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes.

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 one-parameter tool, the core purpose is stated, but because there is no output schema the description does not specify what the process list looks like (e.g., names, PIDs, details). It also omits mention of the need for VMware Tools inside the guest, which is a relevant prerequisite given the sibling tool vm_check_tools.

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 only parameter vm is fully described in the input schema as 'VM name or .vmx path' (100% coverage), so the schema already provides the necessary meaning. The description adds no further parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (running processes inside the guest VM), making the tool's function immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like guest_run_command or guest_kill_process, which perform different actions on guest 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 includes a necessary prerequisite ('Requires guest credentials'), which gives some usage context. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as guest_run_command or guest_kill_process, and no exclusions are provided.

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