search_processes

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the output format (JSON map for multiple hosts) and the effect of 'full_info', but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only nature), error handling, or permissions. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality, including the two modes, regex matching, and optional stats. It lacks details on single-host output format and error cases, but overall is complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value beyond the schema: it explains that 'hosts' allows concurrent queries and returns a map, and implies the default output without full_info. However, much of the param info is already in the schema.

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 searches running processes on one or multiple hosts using a regex pattern, and differentiates between single and multiple host modes. This specific verb+resource description distinguishes it from siblings like list_hosts or run_command.

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 explicitly advises to prefer 'hosts' for finding services across multiple nodes, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings.

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