List processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: OS-specific command mapping (ps sorted by CPU, tasklist) and the filtering capability. It does not disclose return format, but output schema covers that. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function, adds OS-specific commands, and notes filtering. No wasted words, and the most critical information comes first. Perfectly concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally. The description covers the core purpose, OS behavior, sorting, and filtering. The only gap is the limit parameter semantics, which is minor given its intuitive nature and default. Overall, the definition is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly explains the filter parameter ('optionally filtered by a substring'), but does not mention the limit parameter at all. The limit's purpose (capping result count) is only inferable from its name and default. With zero coverage, both parameters should be clarified; only one is.

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 action ('List host processes') and the resource, with OS-specific detail (ps/tasklist) and optional filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like process_kill (which mutates) and system_summary (broader system info). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 makes it clear this is for retrieving a process list, optionally filtered, which implies usage for inspection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use process_kill to terminate'). The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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