Get running process

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the behavioral detail of descending CPU sort order, but lacks other traits like error handling or required permissions.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no redundant words. The description is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 description omits any indication of what the output is (e.g., list of process names, PIDs, CPU percentages). Since there's no output schema, this information is needed for complete understanding. Also, no mention of behavior with unreachable hosts or empty results.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the 'host' parameter beyond its title. The tool description fails to explain what the host parameter expects (e.g., IP, hostname) or any constraints.

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 it lists processes, specifies the resource (processes on a system), and adds a distinct detail (sorted by CPU descending). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_cpu_info or get_disk_info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_cpu_info or run_ssh_read_only. The description simply states what it does, with no context on when it's appropriate or not.

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