ps

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

The description claims a read operation ('List') but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, contradicting the implied safety profile. Additionally, no details are given about process scope (e.g., all processes vs. user's), output format, or whether root access is needed.

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 exceptionally concise at two words, with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place for a simple operation.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not specify whether the listing includes all processes or only the user's, any sorting, or the output format, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but with zero parameters this is acceptable; a baseline of 4 is warranted as no further clarification is needed.

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 'List running processes' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('running processes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'top' (interactive) and 'system_info' (broader system data).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'top' or 'system_info'. The description lacks context about its utility or limitations, leaving the agent without decision support.

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