list_java_processes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the underlying command (jps -l -m), which gives transparency. It could improve by noting potential permission requirements, but overall it is sufficient for a read-only 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and purpose, then provides the usage instruction. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, return structure, usage, and underlying mechanism. It lacks details on error conditions or performance notes, but these are not critical for a diagnostic list 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 single parameter topN is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by suggesting 'Use higher values if many Java processes are running,' providing guidance beyond the schema's default and range.

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 clearly states it lists all running Java processes and specifies the return fields (pid, mainClass, args). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly positioning it as a prerequisite for profiling/analysis tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this tool first to discover the target process PID before calling start_profiling or analyze_threads.' This clearly indicates when to use it and suggests alternatives.

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