Linux Processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only listing behavior ('list') and mentions filtering, which are useful traits. However, it does not disclose what filters are supported, how results are ordered, or any permission requirements.

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, short phrase with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the brevity sacrifices useful detail.

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 open-ended parameter schema and lack of annotations, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to know how to construct a valid filter. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but filtering semantics are under-specified.

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 schema for 'params' is an open object with additionalProperties true and zero description coverage. The description mentions 'filtering' but gives no details about filter keys, value formats, or combinations, leaving the agent to guess how to populate the single parameter.

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 of running processes with filtering', clearly identifies the resource (running processes) and the operation (list/filter). It is distinct enough from siblings like linux_logs or linux_network, though it does not name alternative tools.

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 the tool should be used when one needs to see running processes and filter them, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar tools like linux_execute_command or linux_host_stats. The usage context is implied by the noun phrase rather than stated.

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