list_processes

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. It mentions SSH connectivity for remote execution, which adds context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, output format details (though output schema exists), or error handling. For a tool that interacts with system processes, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences: one for the core purpose and one for parameter semantics. It's front-loaded with the main functionality, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the low schema coverage. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating usage notes more clearly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, system interaction), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral context like safety, permissions, or execution details. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is just adequate with clear gaps.

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 adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'host' is optional for remote SSH connection (defaulting to local execution) and 'username' is required if host is provided. This clarifies the conditional relationship between parameters beyond what the schema's types and defaults indicate, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

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 'CPU and memory usage', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_process_info' by focusing on listing with metrics rather than detailed information about a specific process. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 through parameter explanations (e.g., host optional for local execution, username required if host provided), suggesting when to use remote vs. local. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_process_info' or other monitoring tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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