get_ps_aux_top_cpu_consumers

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

The description only mentions output ordering. It does not disclose that the tool connects via SSH to a remote host, executes a command, or any potential side effects. With no annotations to clarify behavior, this is a significant gap for an agent.

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 very concise (8 words). It gets the main purpose across without excess. While it could benefit from a bit more context, it is not verbose and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (7 parameters, SSH connection, top 10 output) and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It lacks mention of connection prerequisites, error handling, and output description. The presence of an output schema slightly reduces the need to explain return values, but the tool's usage context remains underspecified.

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 0%, and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. Parameters like host, user, key_path, accept_new_hostkey are left undefined. The agent receives no help in understanding how to fill them, especially complex ones like authentication options.

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 it lists top 10 CPU consumers sorted by CPU descending. It distinguishes from siblings like get_ps_aux_top_mem_consumers (memory) and get_top (general). However, it could be more explicit about the underlying command (ps aux) and the sorting order.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes many similar tools, but no comparison or selection criteria are provided. The description implies usage for CPU monitoring but lacks context for when to choose this over get_top or others.

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