proc_list

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

The description claims read-only listing, but annotations set destructiveHint=true, creating a contradiction. No additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) is disclosed beyond the contradictory annotations.

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 no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded immediately: 'List running processes on this machine.' Efficient and clear.

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?

Describes output fields (PID, CPU%, memory, command), which is helpful without an output schema. However, it lacks notes on authorization, performance impact, or potential destructive behavior hinted by annotations.

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 single parameter 'filter' is already fully described in the schema (substring match). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what is provided in the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states it lists running processes with specific resource (processes) and verb (List). It mentions optional filtering, making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on network or security scans.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sys_info, net_connections). The description only states what it does, not context or exclusions.

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