get_top_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context about sorting by CPU or memory and the top-N concept, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not disclose return format, but that is low risk for a read-only query.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and valuable details. It is concise with no unnecessary words or repetition of schema information.

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 low-complexity read-only query tool with full schema annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly conveys what the tool returns and the key options, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. No additional context is necessary.

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 each parameter (n and sort_by) fully documented including defaults and constraints. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, essentially restating the sorting behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 returns the top N resource-hungry processes sorted by CPU or memory usage, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage or get_ram_usage that report system-wide usage rather than per-process lists. It uses a specific verb ("Returns") and names the resource and sorting criteria.

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 implies usage for viewing top resource-consuming processes but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools include get_process_details, search_process, and process_tree, the lack of explicit guidance leaves room for ambiguity, though the purpose is fairly self-evident.

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