list_top_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return format options and the exact keys and process fields returned. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The Returns block is concise and directly useful, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary details.

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?

For a read-only, list-style tool with full parameter schema and an output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating when to prefer it over sibling status tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, and every parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add substantial parameter-level semantics beyond restating the sorting dimension and return structure, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 processes sorted by CPU or memory consumption, using a specific verb and resource. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_cpu_status or get_memory_status, which focus on system-level metrics rather than process-level rankings.

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 when to use the tool—when process-level CPU or memory ranking is needed—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_cpu_status or get_memory_status. It offers no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.

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