winops_perf_process

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds error behavior (success=false if PID not found) and shows the return structure, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured with a return format and example, no wasted words. Could be a bit more compact but effective.

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 covers purpose, return format, error handling, and an example, which is complete for a simple read-only tool. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation but given low complexity, it's adequate.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage) with descriptions. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides; it mentions the metrics returned but doesn't elaborate on parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('process'), and specifies the exact metrics (CPU, memory, thread count, I/O counters). This is clear, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like winops_process_info or winops_process_resources, though the metric list helps. Minor deduction for lack of explicit 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving performance metrics of a process, and provides an example call. However, it doesn't give explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like winops_process_info or winops_process_resources. There's no mention of conditions or exclusions.

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