list_by_process_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that matches come from the process_names field extracted during indexing, which helps explain why results may be limited. But it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how matching is performed, what the return shape is, or any pagination/error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences contain only useful information: the action, the resource, the filter, and the underlying field. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and has no redundant phrasing.

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 straightforward list/filter tool, the required parameter and default limit are documented, and the source field is mentioned. The absence of an output schema and any note about result format, empty results, or pagination prevents a perfect score, but the essential details for correct invocation are present.

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%, with both process and limit already explained in the input schema. The description adds the process_names field context, which is helpful background, but it does not materially expand on the schema's parameter meanings. Baseline 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?

Starts with a specific verb ('Find') and names both the resource ('detection rules') and the exact filter ('process name or executable'). The second sentence distinguishes it from sibling list_by_* tools by explicitly tying it to the process_names indexing field, so an agent can differentiate it from list_by_mitre, list_by_severity, etc.

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 use case is clear from the tool name, parameter, and description, and the mention of the process_names field implies the data source. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_detections or other list_by_* tools, nor does it indicate when it should not be used.

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