process_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool lists processes with sorting and filtering, it doesn't describe what the output looks like, whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance implications, or any system requirements. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that packs substantial information about the tool's capabilities. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 11 parameters, though it could benefit from better structure by separating core purpose from parameter details.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and most parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context about the tool's operation would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 11 parameters, the description compensates well by listing most key parameters: name, user, status, CPU/memory thresholds, system-process filtering, sort order, and limit. It provides semantic meaning for what would otherwise be completely undocumented parameters, though it doesn't cover all 11 parameters (missing 'duration' and 'ctx').

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('running processes') with specific attributes ('sorted by CPU or memory'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'process_kill' by focusing on listing rather than termination. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool beyond the different action.

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 description mentions optional filtering capabilities but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'process_kill' or any context about when listing processes is appropriate versus terminating them. Usage is implied through parameter listing rather than explicit guidance.

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