list_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool excludes certain process types and that discovery is via IPC endpoints, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what happens if no processes are found. The exclusions are a behavioral trait, but more context (e.g., performance implications, side effects) would be helpful.

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 waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion detail is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is listed, how they are discovered, and what is excluded. The only minor gap is not describing the return format (e.g., whether it returns process names, IDs, or full details), but since there's no output schema, a brief note on return shape would improve completeness. Still, the description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the filter parameter. The description adds context about what the filter matches (process name) but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 .NET processes suitable for memory profiling, discovered via diagnostic IPC endpoints. It also specifies exclusions (IDE, tooling, MCP server processes), which distinguishes it from generic process-listing tools and provides concrete scope.

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 when to use it (when you need to identify .NET processes for memory profiling) and what it excludes, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like snapshot, analyze, and compare_snapshots suggest a workflow, but the description doesn't route the agent to them or explain how list_processes fits into that workflow.

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