list_windows_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden: "List" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the named return fields hint at what the call reports. It says nothing about whether all processes or only the caller's are visible, whether admin rights are needed, or how CPU seconds are measured (cumulative vs. delta).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the return fields are both stated up front.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema documenting return values, the description only needs to identify the resource, which it does. The remaining gap is scope visibility (all processes vs. accessible ones), which could matter for a Windows process lister but is minor for correctly invoking the tool.

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 takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% and empty properties), so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List processes") and even names the returned fields (PID, working set MB, CPU seconds), so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as kill_process_tool or list_windows_services.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or elevation requirements, and no reference to alternatives in the sibling set. The usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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