system_process_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares safety via '[SAFE]' but provides no details on output format, permissions, or scope (e.g., all processes or current user). Behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with a useful safety prefix. It is efficiently structured with no fluff, but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters, the description covers basic purpose and options. However, it omits return value description, behavioral edge cases, and cross-references to sibling tools, leaving gaps for confident agent invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds that 'filter' is by name and 'sortBy' has enum values, but lacks specifics like filter syntax or default sort. The enum values are already in the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'List running processes' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like system_process_kill. The filtering and sorting options are mentioned.

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 includes '[SAFE]' implying non-destructive use, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned despite many sibling tools.

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