agent-tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It excellently discloses the automatic masking of sensitive data in command lines (passwords/tokens) and enumerates return fields. However, it omits whether elevated privileges are required to view all processes or performance characteristics of the system call.

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?

Three sentences, each with distinct purpose: (1) core functionality and return values, (2) security behavior, (3) parameter usage guidance. No redundant words or tautologies. Information is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing the specific fields returned (PID, name, command line, memory). It addresses the key security consideration (masking) for a process inspection tool. Could be improved by noting privilege requirements or scope (user vs system-wide processes).

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 100%, providing full documentation for both 'filter' and 'port' parameters. The description reinforces their usage ('Use filter to search...') but adds minimal semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('running processes'), explicitly naming the returned fields (PID, name, command line, memory usage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools 'prockill' and 'procexec' which perform destructive/executive actions rather than listing.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for parameters ('Use filter to search by process name, or port to find processes using a specific port'). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance regarding siblings like 'prockill' or 'sysinfo', though the verb 'Lists' provides implicit differentiation.

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