list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (table of PID and name) and the case-insensitive substring filtering, but does not mention whether it lists all system processes or only user processes, nor any permission requirements. It's not misleading, but lacks some behavioral depth.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then usage guidance, then args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal structure for agent consumption.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the purpose, how to use it, the parameter meaning, and the return shape. It lacks minor details like edge cases (no matches) or scope of 'running processes', but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Despite the reported 0% schema coverage, the description provides rich semantics for the only parameter: 'Optional substring to filter process names (case-insensitive)' with examples. This fully compensates for the bare schema and gives the agent exact usage guidance.

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') and resource ('running processes with their PIDs'), and immediately links to a distinct use case ('find the PID to pass to capture_process'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_process or list_interfaces.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to find the PID to pass to capture_process.' This provides a clear contextual trigger and names the downstream tool. Though it doesn't list exclusions, the guidance is specific and actionable.

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