process_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the inclusion of ancestors+descendants for a given pid and the system tree behavior without one. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences, succinct, and front-loaded with the main action. Every clause adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

While it covers the two core modes, it is ambiguous whether depth applies to the pid case or only to the system tree. It also does not describe the return structure despite the lack of an output schema, leaving some gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 covers pid well but depth only has type/default constraints. The description compensates by explaining pid as root and depth as controlling the system tree depth, adding meaning to both parameters beyond the schema.

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 states 'Returns a process tree' with a specific verb and resource, then clarifies two modes (with/without pid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_processes or get_process_details, which target different process information.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use each mode: with a pid for ancestors+descendants, without a pid for the system tree at a depth. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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