processes/list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists processes, implying a read-only action, but does not explicitly mention whether it requires privileges, how it handles the 'privileged' parameter, or any potential side effects. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The key action (list processes, find PID) is front-loaded, and the follow-up resources are mentioned briefly. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with clear schema definitions for all parameters. The description provides the essential workflow (find PID, then act). Since there is no output schema, it doesn't describe return format, but for a list tool that's an expected gap. It adequately covers the core use case.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little beyond the schema—only the hint that it's for finding a PID, which is a context for the 'pid' parameter but not a deep semantic addition.

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 ('Lists') and the resource ('running processes on the system'), and immediately distinguishes its purpose from siblings like processes/top and processes/delete by stating its use ('to find a PID'). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly ties usage to a workflow: 'Use this to find a PID', and then directs to process://{pid}/{target} or processes/delete for next steps. It doesn't mention when to use alternatives like processes/top, but it provides clear situational guidance for its primary role.

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