Detect process resource leaks by identifying steady growth in handles, private memory, or thread counts. Find the offending process before it exhausts system resources.
Processes whose handles, private memory or threads keep growing in a straight line (sampled every minute for two hours, flagged after ten minutes or more): the usual sign of a leak.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the sampling cadence (every minute), the observation window (two hours), and the flagging threshold (ten minutes or more of growth). It does not say what fields come back per process or whether it requires prior recording activity.
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 sentence with no filler, and the core concept (growth in a straight line) is front-loaded. The heavy parenthetical is dense but each clause carries real detection detail.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the detection criteria well but leaves the return shape unspecified (which processes, what metrics, over what interval). It also does not note any prerequisite such as the two hours of recorded activity needing to already exist.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the implicit per-minute/two-hour window is fixed rather than configurable, which is consistent with the empty schema.
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 identifies a specific resource class (processes with linearly growing handles, private memory, or threads) and the signal it represents (a leak), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_process or list_processes. It is written as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so an agent must infer that it returns such processes.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this when investigating suspected memory/handle growth versus calling get_memory, get_process, or list_handles directly. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.