sysknife_list_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is limited to confirming read-only and stating that results include CPU and memory usage; it says nothing about pagination, result caps, or sort order.

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?

One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero waste. The backtick-quoted internal action name is mildly noisy but harmless.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, safety (via annotations), and the shape of the returned data. Only minor gaps remain around result ordering or size, which are low-stakes here.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'no params', which matches the schema and removes any ambiguity about needing arguments.

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?

States a specific verb ('list') and resource ('running processes') plus the payload returned (CPU and memory usage), which is enough to separate it from siblings like sysknife_get_memory_info or sysknife_list_services. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is distinct from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Read-only SysKnife action' and 'no params' – an agent can infer this is the go-to call for a process list, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative named (e.g. vs. get_host_state or collect_diagnostics).

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