List local processes

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals safety, and the description reinforces it by stating 'does not terminate or modify processes.' This adds explicit behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation, confirming that the tool is purely observational. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the non-destructive clarification is concise. Ideal length for a simple read-only tool.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it does not do. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret its effect. Nothing is missing.

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, the schema carries no meaning to supplement. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Per the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description is complete for its interface.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('processes') with scope ('running on the connected computer'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which all operate on files, directories, or links. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use it (whenever process listing is needed) and, by contrast with the file-oriented siblings, effectively excludes those alternatives. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this for processes, not files,' but the resource naming makes that clear. A slight gap is that it doesn't mention any conditions that would make another tool more appropriate, but none are relevant.

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