process_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output fields, the top 30 limit, filtering behavior (partial match, case-insensitive), and sortable options. It doesn't mention permissions or potential errors, but for a read-only listing tool this is sufficient context.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then lists output fields, filtering, sorting, the 30-item limit, and closes with use cases. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what data it returns, how to narrow results, and why you'd use it. No output schema exists, but the description covers the return content. It's fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates filtering and sorting but adds little beyond the schema's own detailed parameter descriptions (including examples and default sort in the schema). The phrasing 'find RAM hogs' and 'find CPU hogs' adds usage intent but not new parameter semantics.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Display a list of processes/applications currently running on this Windows PC.' It specifies the output fields (process name, PID, memory, CPU time) and distinguishes itself from siblings like process_kill by focusing on listing and inspection.

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 states useful scenarios: 'monitoring, debugging, finding resource-consuming processes, or identifying processes before killing them.' This implies when to use it, and the reference to 'before killing them' indirectly points to the sibling tool process_kill. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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