cacheout_get_process_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: explains the two modes (standalone RSS estimate vs app physical footprint), notes that sort_by_pageins is gated false, and describes the response envelope (mode, capabilities, data). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (5 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence describes purpose, then return format, mode details, sort key behavior, and finally parameters. No superfluous text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, the description covers all major aspects: purpose, mode dependency, sort key behavior, parameter defaults, and response structure. It adequately informs usage without missing critical details.

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 input schema already has detailed descriptions for both parameters (top_n and sort_by). The description adds context by linking sort_by to mode-dependency and mentioning the pageins gate. This goes beyond the schema, providing additional semantic value.

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 action ('Get top processes by memory usage') and resource ('top processes on macOS'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which deal with caches, alerts, disk, etc. No ambiguity.

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 explains the tool retrieves top processes sorted by memory consumption, and clarifies mode-dependent behavior (standalone vs app). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient and no alternative tool exists among siblings.

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