list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It provides default sorting and limit behavior, explains host_name selection from SSH_HOSTS, and lists the exact return fields (PID, user, CPU%, MEM%, command). It does not mention error behavior or sort order direction, but for a simple listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 a one-sentence purpose, a compact Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with three optional parameters and a provided output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: sorting, limiting, host selection, and return content. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: sort_by with allowed values and default, limit with default, and host_name with its source and fallback behavior. This is far more helpful than 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 clearly states the tool lists running processes sorted by resource usage, which is a specific verb+resource combo. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_process and kill_process by focusing on a general sorted listing rather than searching or terminating.

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 through its purpose and argument defaults, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_process or get_system_overview. It also lacks any exclusionary guidance or prerequisite notes.

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