list_processes

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait that no annotations cover (annotations are absent). This discloses that the tool has no side effects. It does not mention permissions or limitations, but the read-only statement adds significant transparency beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and safety hint without wasted words. It is actionable and direct.

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 and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the filter parameter semantics are ambiguous (name_filter vs. command line), and max_results is not mentioned. Given no schema description coverage, the description should provide more clarity to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by name or command line, but the schema only has 'name_filter' and 'max_results'. The description does not clarify how command line filtering is achieved or mention max_results at all, creating ambiguity about parameter usage.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'running processes', and mentions optional filtering by name or command line. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_process and terminate_process, which are action-oriented process 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?

The phrase 'Read-only' provides clear context that this tool is for inspection, not modification, and the filtering option hints at usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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