get_process_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions remote execution via SSH when host is provided, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, authentication requirements beyond SSH username, or what 'detailed information' includes. The description is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive agent.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a structured 'Args:' section. Each sentence earns its place by adding value. However, the formatting with quotes and line breaks could be slightly cleaner, and the purpose statement is somewhat generic.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral transparency. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should still cover operational aspects like safety, errors, or dependencies. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that might involve remote execution.

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 compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: pid as 'Process ID', host as 'Remote host to connect to via SSH (optional, executes locally if not provided)', and username as 'SSH username for remote host (required if host is provided)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it could elaborate on pid format or host syntax.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific process'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_processes' by focusing on a single process rather than listing all processes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other process-related tools that might not exist in this set.

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 implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., host optional for local execution, username required if host provided), which helps understand when to provide certain inputs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list_processes' or other monitoring tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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