Android processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: the failure mode ('throws with the reason rather than returning an empty list') and the naming convention for app processes, which aids interpretation of results. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, naming context/usefulness, filter usage, and failure behavior. Front-loaded with the core purpose and scoped with practical guidance. No fluff.

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 simple listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the return values ('pid and process name'), the naming convention, filter behavior, and error handling. An agent can call this tool correctly with full confidence. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both `device` and `filter` are fully documented in the input schema, including default behavior and examples. The description restates the filter behavior but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('processes running on a device'), then clarifies the exact purpose: 'this is how you confirm an app is actually running and find the pid other tools want.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like android_list_apps, which lists installed apps, not running processes.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use it: 'confirm an app is actually running and find the pid other tools want.' It also specifies filter behavior and omitting the filter to list everything. No exclusion or explicit alternative is named, but the usage scenario is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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