top

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

The annotation sets readOnlyHint to false, implying possible write operations, but the description says 'Display', which is read-only. This contradiction undermines transparency. Additionally, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word serves the purpose of stating the tool's function efficiently.

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?

While the tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, the description could benefit from clarifying the behavior (e.g., snapshot vs. dynamic updates) and differentiating from sibling tools like 'ps'. Currently, it is adequate but lacks full 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing missing.

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 'Display system processes (snapshot)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool provides a static view of system processes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ps' that may offer continuous updates or different process views.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ps' or 'system_info'. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or conditions for use, 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.