Process details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that, such as error behavior for invalid PIDs, permission requirements, or remote-host behavior. With annotations present, the lack of extra context is acceptable but not actively informative.

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, direct sentence that conveys the core purpose immediately. There is no wasted wording or redundant repetition of the tool name or title.

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 tool's low complexity, clear read-only annotation, complete parameter schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. It could be improved by mentioning that the tool supports remote hosts via SSH and by explicitly distinguishing it from list_processes, but these are not critical gaps.

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%, fully documenting both 'pid' and 'host' parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a specific process'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processes that enumerate processes. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or elaborate on what 'information' is included, but the singular 'specific process' provides enough clarity for basic tool selection.

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 this tool is for retrieving details about one known process, contrasting with list_processes for enumeration. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention that it can connect to a remote host via SSH as an alternative use case.

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