list_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond what the purpose implies; it does not mention output format, sorting, or potential resource impact. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal extra disclosure.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first states purpose and output, the second gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description fully covers selection and invocation. It tells the agent what it returns (a full list with PIDs), when to use it, and which sibling to prefer in the excluded case. No output schema exists, but the return semantics are adequately implied for this simple list operation.

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 schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4 because there is no parameter description burden. The description's mention of returning PIDs implicitly confirms what the tool produces without needing parameter-level explanations.

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 ('Full list') and resource ('all running processes with PIDs'), making the tool's action unmistakable. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_top_processes by what it does and does not do, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: finding a process by name or getting a PID to kill. It also gives a clear exclusion ('Do NOT use to see what is consuming the most resources') and names the proper alternative, get_top_processes.

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