winops_process_info

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the exact return format (fields like cpu_percent, num_threads) and error handling (returns success=false for non-existent PID). This goes beyond the annotation coverage, though it doesn't mention rate limits or permission 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?

The description is concise: a one-line purpose, a clear JSON return format block, an example call, and an error note. No fluff, well-structured with headers. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the rich annotations (read-only, idempotent) and a single parameter, the description adds a comprehensive return format and error behavior illustrationaine. It covers the essential details for an agent to invoke and interpret results without an output schema. The error case is explicitly documented. For a simple one-parameter read operation, this is quite complete.

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?

The schema already describes the pid parameter as 'Process ID to inspect.' With 100% parameter coverage in the schema, the description doesn't need to elaborate. The return format implicitly clarifies what pid is used for, but no extra semantic is added beyond the schema. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Get detailed information for a single process by PID', which is a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes from siblings like process_list (which likely lists processes) and process_resources (resource-focused). The scope is unambiguous.

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 a single process by PID with the return format showing fields like status, memory, threads. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear. Since no exclusions are given, a 4 is appropriate.

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