list_java_processes

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. It effectively describes the return format (List[Dict[str, str]]) and the specific fields included (pid, name, args), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like permission requirements, refresh rates, or whether the list is real-time versus cached.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear Returns section with specific field documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the structure of the returned data. The only minor gap is the lack of behavioral context about permissions or refresh behavior, but overall it's highly complete for this tool type.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the return value instead. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('列出所有Java进程' - list all Java processes) and resource (Java processes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_jvm_info or get_jvm_status by focusing specifically on process listing rather than JVM metrics or status information.

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 implies usage context (when you need to see all Java processes) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_jcmd_output or get_jvm_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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