running_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the operation is safe (read-only), whether it requires permissions, or what the output structure is (though an output schema exists). The sorting behavior is implied but not detailed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every part is informative and there is no redundancy. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 has only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but lacks details like valid sort_by values, limit bounds, and nature of 'top' (e.g., current snapshot). Adequate but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains sort_by can be 'CPU or memory' but does not specify valid values (e.g., 'cpu', 'memory') or constraints. Limit parameter is not mentioned beyond default. Partially compensates but incomplete.

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 action (Get), the resource (top running tasks/processes), and the sorting criterion (by CPU or memory). It effectively distinguishes from sibling metrics tools like battery_metrics or cpu_metrics, which focus on system-level metrics rather than process listing.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are different in nature, the description does not mention that this tool is for process-level information, nor does it advise against using it for system metrics. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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