find_game_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the full return shape, the case-insensitive substring filter, and the important caveat that `is_64=None` means 'not measured' rather than '32-bit', which prevents a real misinterpretation.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, Args and Returns are cleanly separated, and every line adds information. No filler or duplicated schema boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return structure and per-field caveats, and it documents both parameters. What's missing is only a brief note on how the game heuristic behaves or how large the result set might be.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains `name_filter` as a case-insensitive process-name substring and `only_games` as a heuristic game-process filter defaulting to True. It stops short of defining what 'looks like a game' means, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('列出正在运行的游戏进程') plus a secondary capability (identify the il2cpp/mono runtime), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like runtime_info or inspect_game, so it's clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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: the `only_games=True` default hints that discovery comes first and filtering is secondary, and one can infer this is a pre-step to opening/inspecting a process. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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