Linux MCP Server

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, stating it 'gets information' without detailing what information is returned, format, or any constraints like permissions or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint), high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple read operation. However, it could better address the tool's role among siblings and provide more behavioral context, though the structured data compensates well.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (pid and host). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between pid and host or typical use cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Get' and resource 'information about a specific process', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_processes' or 'get_system_information', which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_processes' and 'get_system_information', there's no indication of whether this tool is for detailed info on a single process, how it differs from broader system tools, or any prerequisites for usage.

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