find_process

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return value (matching processes with PIDs and details) and the host_name fallback behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature is implied but not explicit) or details like case sensitivity or regex support.

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 concise and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant wording.

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 tool's low complexity, an output schema exists, and the description covers both parameters and return values. It is complete for a search tool, though it could be enhanced by explicitly contrasting with list_processes for added contextual guidance.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters. It clarifies that 'name' is a search keyword ('e.g., "nginx", "python"') and that 'host_name' is a named host from SSH_HOSTS config with default host if omitted. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search for processes by name or keyword') and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_processes tool, which lists all processes. It also gives concrete examples like 'nginx' and 'python'.

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 for finding a process by name or keyword and mentions host_name behavior (default host when omitted), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of list_processes or other alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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