process_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job by revealing important platform-specific behaviors (PTY stderr_count always 0, chunk-based counts, exit_code null on Windows ConPTY). These details are not evident from the schema and are valuable for interpreting results. It could be more exhaustive about error cases or required privileges, but it goes beyond a simple statement of intent.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds essential caveats. No wasted words or redundant details. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to quickly comprehend the tool's function and nuances.

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 output schema, the description must give the agent a sense of what to expect. It mentions 'all metadata and per-stream I/O counts' and provides specific examples (stderr_count, exit_code) with caveats. This is moderately complete, though it could detail the full return structure or mention failure scenarios. Overall, it is sufficient for a single-process inspection 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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Internal process ID.' The tool description does not add further semantics to the parameter, such as how to obtain the ID or any format constraints. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a single process' including metadata and per-stream I/O counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_list (which lists processes), process_kill, and process_start, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context is clear: use this tool when you need detailed information about one process, identified by its id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single process' phrasing combined with sibling names like process_list implies the appropriate selection. A direct pointer to process_list for listing would have earned a 5, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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