processes/list

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that cpu sorting samples for ~0.5 s and only then emits cpu_percent, that limit is applied after sorting, that kernel threads render as [name], that cmdlines can leak secrets, and how output_format changes the shape. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose and result fields before branching into alternatives and behavior. The paragraph is long but nearly every clause carries new constraints; only marginal tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the JSON array fields, noting the text-table default, and explaining sort/limit interaction and the conditional cpu_percent column. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret results is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: sort_by semantics (RSS largest-first, cpu costs 0.5 s), limit-after-sorting ordering, human_readable vs bytes, and the note that yaml/table/wide all collapse to JSON. That extra context lifts it above the schema baseline, though it stops short of covering every parameter.

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 and resource ('Lists processes') and enumerates the exact fields returned (PID, PPID, user, state, RSS, command), plus names the data source (/proc). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings (processes/top, network/connections, processes/delete, the process:// resource), so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('find a PID, filter by user or one pid, or sort by memory') and routes each alternative scenario to the correct sibling tool. This is close to an ideal when-to-use map for a crowded processes/* namespace.

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