list-processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (list), which is good, but it omits any details about potential side effects, permissions, or return format. The statement is minimal but not misleading.

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 unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose, but it lacks details about the output format or what information is returned for each process (e.g., PID, name). Without an output schema, this leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema has no parameters, so parameter description is not needed. Per guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but that is acceptable since none exist.

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 explicitly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'running processes', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-process-output' and 'stop-process' by focusing on listing all processes rather than retrieving output or stopping them.

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 viewing all running processes, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks statements like 'Use this when you need to see all processes' or 'Do not use this to interact with a specific process; use get-process-output instead.'

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