get_process_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the "READ-ONLY" framing is largely redundancy. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are bounded by depth and node count, and the tool will not modify processes. It does not address the idempotentHint=false flag or any cost/latency of a full tree walk.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only framing and the entry point. Every clause carries information and there is no filler, though the overall text is thin enough that brevity shades into under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented at 100% coverage with no required fields. For a simple bounded read tool the description is sufficient, with the only real gap being routing guidance against sibling process/memory tools.

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 100%, so root_pid, max_depth, and max_nodes are all fully documented in the schema, including the non-obvious "pass an explicitly requested depth even when it is below the default" caveat. The description only echoes root_pid and adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope ("PROCESS TREE starting at root_pid") in a single clear clause, so the agent immediately knows what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as get_process_memory or get_memory_info, but the visualization of a parent-child tree is distinctive enough.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only negative guidance ("This cannot stop, kill, reprioritize...") is about capability, not about when this tool is the right choice over a sibling like get_process_memory.

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