process_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds critical non-obvious behavior: the VM stays locked after the call and the agent must explicitly invoke vm_unlock. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and is valuable for correct orchestration.

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 short sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the lock-handling caveat is appended without verbosity. Every word contributes useful information.

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 description is sufficient for a straightforward list operation: it identifies the platform (Windows 98), the purpose, and a critical side-effect. It does not describe the return format (e.g., process names, PIDs), but for a simple list tool and with no output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a fundamental incompleteness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The schema already fully covers the parameter space with an empty object.

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' with a clear resource 'Windows 98 processes', making the tool's function immediately obvious. It is distinct from sibling tools like process_kill and process_wait, which perform different operations.

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 gives clear operational context by stating the VM remains locked and instructing to call vm_unlock when finished. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but this is not necessary for a simple list operation; the lock-unlock guidance is practical and directly applicable.

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