pslist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and documents the return shape (success/processes/count/error), which is useful. However it omits the Sysinternals-specific caveats an agent would care about, such as whether it wraps a local or remote call and any elevation requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, then the wrapper note, then a cleanly sectioned return format. It is tight, though restating the return format when an output schema already exists is mildly redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The gaps are the missing sibling differentiation (pslist_detail) and the absence of any privilege or scope behavior, which matter for a Sysinternals process tool with no annotations.

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 both parameters (tree, include_kernel) are already fully documented with their underlying flags in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (processes) and enumerates the exact output fields (PID, CPU time, thread count, handle count), which is more informative than a bare 'list processes'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling pslist_detail, so an agent must guess at the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over pslist_detail, psinfo, or the other process-oriented siblings, and no preconditions (e.g. privilege requirements) are stated. The description merely says what it does, not when to reach for it.

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