find_stale_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only search operation ('Find...') and mentions 'potentially stale' but does not explicitly state that it performs no destructive actions, whether results are limited, or any side effects. The heuristic nature of 'potentially' is vague and lacks detail about how staleness is determined beyond what the schema already shows.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds a clear use case. Every word contributes value with no repetition or filler.

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 has 4 optional parameters and an output schema, so the schema fills in some gaps. However, the description does not clarify what constitutes 'stale' (e.g., age, memory, state) beyond the parameter names, and it fails to mention relationships to sibling tools. For a moderately complex tool, this leaves some gaps in understanding when and how to invoke it effectively.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, each with clear names, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool 'finds potentially stale processes' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (like list_top_processes or kill_processes) by focusing on staleness rather than general listing or termination. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or contrast its behavior.

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 provides helpful context ('Useful for finding long-running background processes that may be consuming resources unnecessarily'), implying when to use it. It does not mention when to avoid it or offer alternatives like list_top_processes, so the guidance is present but incomplete.

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