process_list_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that output is a Prefab UI card (likely read-only) with a plain text fallback, indicating non-destructive behavior. It doesn't disclose pagination or performance impact, but for a display tool this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and filter, second describes output format and fallback. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 low complexity (2 optional params), the description covers purpose, filtering, and output format. It lacks detail on error handling or exact card content, but is sufficient for a simple display tool.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains that 'name_filter' filters by name and 'max_processes' limits the count, adding value beyond the raw schema. Though not exhaustive, it provides sufficient meaning for most use cases.

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 'display', the resource 'running processes', and the optional filter by name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'process_management' by focusing on a rich card display.

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 gives context on when to use (to display running processes, optionally filtered) and mentions fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage or compare with sibling tools like 'system_health_card' for system overview.

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