list_processes

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

Despite no annotations, the description covers behavior: read-only, operates on loaded trace, explains empty result is rare, and error conditions (no trace loaded). This fully informs the agent.

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 efficiently structured with distinct sections (what it does, use cases, exclusions, parameters, result, errors). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields, preconditions, and edge cases (empty result, errors). It provides all necessary context for correct 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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. No additional parameter info is needed, and the description correctly states 'Parameters: 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 explicitly states 'List every process captured in the trace' and lists the returned fields (upid, pid, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying not for Chrome traces and referencing dedicated chrome_* 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 clear 'Use when' instructions (entry point for Android/Linux trace analysis, feeding pid/upid to list_threads_in_process or chrome_main_thread_hotspots), a 'Don't use for' section (Chrome traces), and a prerequisite (load_trace first).

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