process_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' is a non-mutating verb that strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description reveals that sorting and filtering affect the output. It does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or snapshot semantics, but for a simple process-listing tool the description is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's core purpose and output content; the second gives actionable parameter guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with three optional parameters and full schema documentation. The description covers the core output (CPU, memory, runtime) and typical use cases. There is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by naming the returned details. Missing explicit default behavior is minor because the schema already documents defaults and enums.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by tying parameters to goals: sorting by CPU/memory helps find resource hogs, and filtering by process name helps find specific applications. This goes beyond the schema's enum and default descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List running processes with CPU, memory, and runtime details.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_status, disk_usage, and system_health, which target different resources. The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete usage guidance for parameters: 'Sort by CPU or memory to find resource hogs' and 'Filter by process name to find specific applications.' However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus siblings such as service_status or system_health; the when-to-use is implied rather than stated.

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