process_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool leaves the VM locked and explicitly instructs the agent to call vm_unlock afterward. This is valuable operational transparency.

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, both necessary. The primary action is stated first, followed by the critical lock-release instruction. No filler or redundant repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

The tool is simple: one documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description provides the critical lock context and tells the agent the exact next step. It could mention what the returned process list looks like, but that is implied sufficiently for a list operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents vm_name, including its pattern and meaning from WIN98CTL.INI. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List Windows 98 processes.' This clearly distinguishes process_list from siblings like process_kill and process_wait by its read-only listing purpose.

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 gives clear usage context by noting that the VM remains locked and that vm_unlock should be called when finished. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for killing or waiting on processes, but the basic when-to-use and follow-up action are clear.

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