get_process_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention whether permissions are needed, what 'resource usage' includes (CPU, memory, etc.), or whether the list is restricted to the current user. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the essential action and scope in just eight words.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only function, the description provides the core purpose. It could be slightly more explicit about the returned data structure (e.g., list of process names with CPU/memory percentages), but the mention of 'resource usage' gives sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100% vacuously). According to the rubric, 0 params grants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('active running processes') with a qualifier ('with resource usage'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kill_process (which terminates processes) and get_system_stats (which provides overall system metrics).

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 by stating the tool lists processes, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives (e.g., get_system_stats for overall stats) or provide exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity in edge cases.

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