get_process_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the return content but does not disclose potential edge cases such as behavior for nonexistent PIDs or permission requirements. This adds some value beyond annotations but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a concrete list of return fields. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and effective.

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 simple interface (one parameter, well-annotated as read-only) and the schema covering the only parameter, the description is nearly complete. It lists many return fields but uses 'and more' without enumerating everything, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Minor incompleteness, but still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single pid parameter, with a clear description including type, constraints, and source guidance. The tool description adds nothing beyond restating 'by PID'. Since the schema handles the parameter semantics completely, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns detailed information about a specific process by PID, listing concrete details like executable path, command line, and memory breakdown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_processes and search_process, which operate at a process-list level rather than a single process detail level.

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 main description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. However, the input schema's pid parameter description notes to obtain the PID from get_top_processes or search_process, implying a sequential workflow. This is helpful but not an explicit 'use this tool when' guideline, so it remains implied rather than fully explicit.

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