re_proc

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, but it only lists operations without explaining side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether operations mutate state. For example, 'attach' and 'detach' likely affect process handling, but the description does not disclose any of these consequences.

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 a single, concise line that front-loads the purpose and lists operations compactly. It is efficient and skips unnecessary words, though a structured list could improve readability slightly. The brevity is a strength, not a weakness.

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 complexity with five distinct operations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what each operation returns or what 'tebs' stands for, and it lacks any context about expected behavior or edge cases. A multi-operation tool like this benefits from more detail per operation.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds limited value. It does offer a compact mapping of parameters to operations (e.g., {name?|pid?} for attach), but this information is largely present in the schema's parameter descriptions. The notation does clarify that name/pid are optional, which is a slight addition.

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 tool's domain as 'Process lifecycle & validation' and enumerates the available operations (attach, detach, info, is_valid, tebs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on modules, disassembly, etc. However, it does not elaborate on what each operation does, leaving some ambiguity (especially 'tebs').

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 implied by the operation list (e.g., attach for process attachment, is_valid for address validation), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The description does not mention situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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