top_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, what the output contains, or any side effects. This is a minimal description with no added behavioral context.

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 with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the essential 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?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description doesn't indicate what fields are returned (e.g., PID, command, CPU%), which would be useful. It is minimally complete but could benefit from a brief note on return format.

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?

All parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add much. It does mention CPU or memory usage, which aligns with sort_by, but nothing beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 3 applies.

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 returns the top N processes sorted by CPU or memory usage, identifying both the resource (processes) and the scope (N, sort criteria). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gpu_processes or memory_detail.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description—monitoring top processes—but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The tool is a simple process monitor, but the description doesn't differentiate it from other system overview tools.

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