container_top_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It states 'List processes,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether ps_args can alter command execution, if output is a snapshot, or any permission requirements. It is a safe and predictable function, but lacks deeper transparency.

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, well-structured sentence: 'List processes running inside a container.' It contains no redundant words or filler, conveys the core function efficiently, and is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. Given the simplicity of the tool (two params, no nested objects) and the clear purpose, the description is adequate. It could be more complete by mentioning that ps_args changes the process listing output or that it is non-interactive, but these are minor gaps.

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%, with 'name' described as 'Container name or ID' and 'ps_args' as 'Arguments to pass to ps (e.g. "aux")'. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema fully defines both parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'List processes running inside a container.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('processes...inside a container'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_list_tool (lists containers), container_inspect_tool (inspects details), or container_stats_tool (shows resource usage). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: use this when you need to see processes within a specific container. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., not for live monitoring, use container_stats for resource usage). No alternative tools are referenced.

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