zima_top

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection but never states that it makes no changes, whether it requires host access, whether sampling is instantaneous vs. averaged, or how results behave under load.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded before the use case. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple, one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — the agent knows what it returns conceptually (ranked processes). Only the behavioral/safety framing is thin.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter's default (12) and max (40) are documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the count parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and ordering (top processes by CPU), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like zima_disk or zima_docker_stats. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the Docker-oriented siblings, but the host-CPU focus is clear.

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?

"Use it to find what is pegging the CPU" gives a concrete trigger scenario, so usage is implied rather than absent. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer zima_docker_stats for container-level CPU), leaving the agent to infer.

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