get_top_consumers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond the structured fields — that results are ranked/ordered by the chosen metric — but says nothing about the 20-result cap being enforced, the edition-dependent history window, or what fields come back.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the ranking behavior and metric options up front. The trailing 'useful for...' clause is mildly redundant with the stated purpose but still adds usage color.

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 three-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description could have described the shape of a returned ranking entry (container identity plus consumption value) and noted the result cap behavior rather than leaving that only in a parameter description.

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%: metric, limit, and period are all fully documented in the schema, including the default and cap on limit. The description only echoes the cpu/memory choice and adds nothing about limit or the period windows, so 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 verb and resource with the ranking behavior made explicit: 'Get containers ranked by resource consumption (CPU or memory)'. This separates it from list_containers and get_container, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 clause 'useful for identifying resource-heavy containers' implies a use case (triage/capacity work) but gives no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as get_container for a single container's detail or list_containers for a flat inventory.

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