processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully describes the return shape (a total count and a separate zombie breakout), which implies a read-only snapshot, but says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the remote 'server' path changes behavior. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, the sort options, and the notable output features with no wasted words.

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 parameterless-required, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly, including the zombie/count return detail. Only the remote 'server' behavior is left implicit.

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%, so all three parameters are already fully documented (defaults, enum-ish values for sort_by, remote-vs-local semantics for server). The description echoes the CPU/memory sorting concept but adds no detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('processes') plus scope qualifiers ('top ... by CPU or memory'). It distinguishes the sort dimension, though it doesn't contrast itself with the nearest sibling docker_top, which is why it falls short of 5.

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 never says when to use this tool versus siblings like docker_top or system_status, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and parameter list.

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