rammap_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: sorted by working set descending, sourced via Get-Process with WMI extensions, and no binary download required. It still omits permission/admin requirements and any rate or scope caveats, so it is only partially complete.

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?

Content is front-loaded, with the metric list first and implementation notes after, and it uses a clear Return Format block. The 'No binary download required' line is marginally useful but adds noise for an agent that just needs to call the 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?

For a single-parameter read tool, the definition covers purpose, sort order, data source, and the full return shape, so an agent has enough to invoke it. Only the routing decision against the other rammap/pslist siblings remains unclear.

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 single top_n parameter is already fully documented by the schema. The description never mentions top_n or its default/limit, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Show) plus resource (per-process memory usage) and enumerates the metrics: working set, private bytes, shareable, pagefile. This distinguishes it from the rammap_summary/physical/file_backed siblings, which cover aggregate or non-process memory. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it falls short of 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'RAMMap-style process list' implies a context, but an agent is left to infer when this beats pslist or rammap_summary. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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