memoryguard_runtime_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and that execution is always permitted even under degraded governance, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. It could add more about response format or error behavior, but the disclosed safety/availability traits are strong.

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 a single efficient sentence with a colon-delimited fact list and a high-value availability note. No filler or repetition; the key traits are front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter facts tool, the description lists the returned fields and the governance guarantee. It lacks an explicit return-format note, but the enumerated fields largely compensate; context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and the only parameter (workspace) is already fully documented with a default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 names a specific read-only resource ('runtime process facts') and enumerates the exact fields returned (pid, version, fingerprint, workspace, database paths, lease status). This scope is distinct from sibling tools focused on memory, codegraph, audit, or rules, so an agent can identify what this tool offers.

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 provides clear context: it is a safe, read-only facts tool that is 'Always allowed, even when governance is degraded.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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