search_process

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying case-insensitive partial matching and the return fields (PID, CPU%, memory%, status), which are useful behavioral details. It does not mention any side effects, which is consistent with the read-only annotation.

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 that front-loads the action and purpose. It includes essential details without unnecessary fluff, and every clause contributes meaningful 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 simple search tool with one parameter, no output schema, and robust annotations, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, how it matches, and what it returns, leaving no significant gaps. The presence of sibling tools does not create ambiguity for this clearly described operation.

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 fully documents the 'name' parameter with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the search behavior (partial, case-insensitive), which enriches the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 searches for running processes by name, with specific details on case-insensitivity and partial matching. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_top_processes (which lists by resource usage) and get_process_details (which retrieves a specific process's details). The verb 'searches' and object 'running processes' are specific and unambiguous.

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: use when you need to find processes by name and get basic metrics. It provides clear context for the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The name itself and description are sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool over siblings.

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