Procesos con más consumo

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

The annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'en este momento', clarifying that this returns a live, current-time snapshot rather than a historical or continuous report. This temporal scoping adds value 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 a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes; there is no redundant text or boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally mention what fields each returned process includes (name, PID, CPU/memory values). The lack of return format info and no mention of default limit/organization could leave an agent guessing about downstream use. It is adequate but with a clear gap.

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%: limit and sort_by already have clear descriptions including defaults, bounds, and the cpu/memory enum. The description simply echoes 'CPU o memoria' and does not add format, precedence, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Procesos que consumen CPU o memoria en este momento' makes it clear this returns a current list of top processes by CPU or memory. It is distinct from siblings like get_cpu/get_memory (system metrics) though it does not explicitly name them, so it misses the highest tier of own-sibling differentiation.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'en este momento' implies a current snapshot but never mentions when a user should prefer this over get_cpu, get_memory, or another sibling. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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