get_top_processes

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the ranking behavior, but does not disclose details like whether results are a snapshot or how many processes are returned; these are minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: the first states the output, the second gives usage and the negative case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only query tool, the description is sufficient: it names the returned data, the use case, and the alternative for a different need. No output schema is required because the return intent is clearly stated.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to clarify. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter information is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 states a specific capability: returning the top resource-consuming processes ranked by CPU and memory usage. This differentiates it from list_processes and other system-monitoring siblings by emphasizing the ranking and slowdown-detection purpose.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when the user asks what is slowing down or eating up their system') and a clear exclusion with an alternative ('Do NOT use to find a specific process by name — use list_processes for that').

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