List Processes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it uses `ps`, the enrich option cross-references systeminformation.processes() and is slower, and no permission is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the output fields are compactly listed, and the enrich caveat is included efficiently.

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 tool is simple, has no output schema, and full param coverage. The description covers purpose, output fields, enrichment behavior, and permission requirements. It could mention the limit default, but the schema already handles that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the enrich parameter ('additionally cross-reference... slower') and listing the output fields, which complements the schema without redundant repetition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List running processes' and enumerates the exact output fields (pid, ppid, cpu%, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which list processes.

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 provides clear context: it mentions the underlying command (`ps`), states 'No permission required', and explains the enrich:true option for additional detail with the caveat 'slower'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list shows no competing process tool, so the intended usage is obvious.

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