process_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that matching uses pgrep -f on the host, which reveals the matching mechanism and that this is a read-only process lookup. It also clarifies that arbitrary keywords are allowed, not just the predefined service names, which guards against an agent assuming the input is restricted.

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 dense sentences contain all essential information: purpose, mechanism, known valid values, and extensibility. There is no repetition, filler, or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, how matches are performed, and what inputs are valid. It does not discuss edge cases like no match found or invalid keyword syntax, but for this single-parameter read-only status tool the provided context is adequate.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description compensates effectively by explaining that the 'service' parameter is a process keyword passed to pgrep -f, listing known valid values, and clarifying that arbitrary keywords also work. This makes the single parameter understandable and safely usable.

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 a specific action (querying whether key project services are running), identifies the target resource (host processes via pgrep -f), and provides known service names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ros_topic_status and tmux_status, which concern completely different environments.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool: for checking host-level process/service status with pgrep -f matching. It names the accepted known services and explicitly allows passing an arbitrary keyword, giving a clear usage pattern. It does not explicitly exclude the sibling status tools, but their domains are otherwise clear.

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