container_top

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It labels the tool as [READ] indicating non-destructive operation, but does not detail any side effects, permissions needed, or output format. Minimal transparency beyond the core function.

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 extremely concise: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted args list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loads the key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list processes, 2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials. It could mention limitations like only current snapshot, but for a basic read tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Args' section adds critical meaning: it explains container_id as 'Container id or name' and target as 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 reads processes inside a container, using the familiar 'docker top' analogy, which immediately conveys its purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like container_logs or container_stats by specifying the exact function.

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 usage when you need to see running processes inside a container, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., container_stats for resource usage, container_logs for logs). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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