proclist

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that sensitive information in command-line arguments is automatically masked, which is a behavioral trait. It does not mention other behaviors such as whether administrator privileges are required or performance implications for large process lists.

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 three concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second adds transparency about credential masking, third provides usage instructions. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description specifies the returned fields (PID, name, command line, memory usage) and mentions credential masking. It lacks details on ordering, pagination, or default behavior (likely all processes), but is adequate for a straightforward listing tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description's usage hints ('use filter to search by process name, or port to find processes using a specific port') add no new meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions for filter and port.

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 tool lists running processes with specific fields (PID, name, command line, memory usage). It distinguishes itself from siblings like procexec and prockill which perform execution or termination.

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 instructions on using the filter parameter for process name search and port parameter for port-based filtering. It does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like prockill, but the guidance is clear for its intended use.

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