list_processes

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description aligns with those. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing that command arguments are omitted to protect credentials, which is a non-obvious behavioral detail.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core behavior and then add usage guidance and limitations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the output fields, read-only nature, and credential protection, which is good for a simple tool. However, the search parameter's behavior is left entirely unexplained, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 only parameter, 'search', has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The agent cannot determine whether search filters by process name, PID, or something else, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 names the verb 'list', the resource 'local processes', and the returned fields (PID, executable name, CPU, memory). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_ports or read_logs.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use to check whether an application is running,' giving a clear when-to-use signal. It also states what it cannot do ('Cannot kill, restart, or modify processes'), but it does not name a specific alternative tool for those actions.

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