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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it explains the return varies with bundleId and that no automation session is needed, which is not encoded in the 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and metric, then return behavior, then the session prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler (the stray '%%' rendering is a cosmetic artifact only).

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly describes what comes back (top processes by CPU vs a single app) and notes the session prerequisite; annotations cover safety. It stops short of defining field-level detail (memory units, exact columns), leaving a small gap.

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 udid, bundleId and topN. The description restates bundleId's focusing behavior ('just one app when bundleId is given') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is baseline 3.

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 and resource: snapshot per-process CPU and memory for a physical iOS device, and clarifies the return shape (top processes by CPU, or one app when bundleId is given). This distinguishes it from ios_fps (frame rate) and ios_ps by naming exactly the metrics captured, though it never explicitly names a sibling tool to differentiate against.

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 note 'No automation session required' gives one useful operational condition for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as ios_fps, ios_ps, or the record start/stop tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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