app_running

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return values (running and pids) and notes that multiple pids may match, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it explain matching semantics (exact vs partial, case sensitivity) or error behavior. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the docstring structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple one-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential elements: purpose, parameter meaning, and return contract. The only minor omissions are matching semantics and explicit read-only affirmation, which are low-risk for a status check. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides only a string property 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining name as the process name and offering three illustrative examples ('Docker Desktop', 'docker', 'com.docker.backend'), which gives the agent concrete grounding. It stops short of specifying matching rules, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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: '检查进程是否在运行' (check whether a process is running), with concrete examples of process names. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_app, open_url, screenshot, get_screen_size, and wait, which are all actions rather than a status check.

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 provides a clear context: it is a read-only status check for a process. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, the sibling set contains no other process-checking tool, so the intended usage is unambiguous. The examples further clarify what qualifies as a process name.

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