arch_process_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List') and specifies behavioral traits such as ordering by CPU/Memory and searching by name. However, it does not explicitly note that the tool has no side effects or describe any access requirements, but the read-only nature is evident from the verb. This is adequate transparency for a simple listing tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the two key modes. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

For a simple process-listing tool with two optional parameters, an existing output schema, and low complexity, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core functionality and parameter intent, and the output schema can clarify return values. No additional detail is needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 effectively explains the 'search_term' parameter by mentioning 'search process by name', but it does not address the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema's default value. Since 'limit' is self-explanatory in context, the description adds partial value, but not enough to fully document all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('running system processes'). It also indicates two modes: ordering by CPU/Memory usage and searching by name, which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like arch_kill_process. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 (listing processes) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like arch_get_system_info or arch_kill_process. There is no stated exclusion or comparative guidance, so the usage is clear only by inference from the tool name and description.

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