guest_process

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the return payload (pid, thread count), which is genuinely useful. It does not state the negative result (empty result vs. error when the process is absent), whether the call is read-only, or what the `timeout` does before giving up.

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, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the return shape. Every clause earns its place; the process-name examples directly reduce caller ambiguity.

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 two-parameter read-style probe with no output schema, the description covers identity, examples, and the returned fields. The remaining gap is failure/timeout semantics, which matters for a tool that can plausibly be used as a polling primitive.

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 explain both parameters. It adds real value for `name` via concrete examples, but says nothing about `timeout` — its units, default, or whether it polls until the process appears.

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 check ("Is a process running") on a specific resource (a named process in the guest) and adds return content (pid and thread count). No sibling in the list performs process inspection, so no differentiation is needed, but the description does not explicitly say so.

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 implied by the question form and the example process names (MobileSafari, wi_relay), which show the expected lookup style. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus e.g. `settle` or `wait_for`, and no prerequisites such as needing an attached/started guest.

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