podman_container_top

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, such as noting it lists processes but does not disclose any additional nuances like requiring a running container or the effect of ps_args. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition exist, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over exec), parameter semantics, and any prerequisites like container state. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves clear gaps that could cause incorrect invocation in ambiguous situations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not. The names 'name' and 'ps_args' are somewhat self-evident, but ps_args' purpose (likely formatting/filtering arguments to ps) is not clarified. The description provides no added meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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's action: '列出 container 內的 process' (list processes inside a container), and the parenthetical '(podman top)' explicitly references the underlying command. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like logs or stats.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name and description imply it is for process listing, making the usage context inferable but not explicitly contrasted with siblings like podman_container_exec or podman_container_stats.

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