server_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and that sorting is supported, but it omits whether host targeting is required, how limits behave, or any permission considerations.

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 very short, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The telegraphic fragments ('sort: cpu or mem') are efficient, though slightly cryptic compared with a fully structured sentence.

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 is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves critical invocation details—especially host targeting and limit semantics—unexplained.

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. It explains only the 'sort' parameter (cpu or mem); the 'host' and 'limit' parameters are left entirely undocumented, including the meaning of host's empty default and limit's default of 15.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Show the busiest processes'), making the core action immediately clear. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no direct process-listing sibling exists among the Docker-oriented tools, so the purpose remains distinguishable.

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 'sort: cpu or mem' fragment gives a usage hint for one parameter, and 'Read only' signals safe usage. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or what context (e.g., local vs remote host) makes it appropriate.

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