List system processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the returned fields (PID, CPU, memory), which is useful since no output schema exists, but says nothing about scope (local vs. a specific device) or volume of results.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence naming the action, resource, and payload fields with zero waste. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 basic read tool whose annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves the two input parameters entirely unexplained and does not distinguish this tool from very similar siblings.

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% for two parameters (deviceId, deviceName), and the description mentions neither. Since the tool can presumably be scoped to a device, this is a meaningful gap the description does not compensate for.

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 ('operating-system processes') with the fields returned (PID, CPU, memory). However, it offers no differentiation from the near-identical sibling 'process_list' (or 'get_usage_stats'), so an agent cannot tell which of the two to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite multiple overlapping siblings (process_list, get_usage_stats, list_sessions). The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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