top_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read-only operation via 'show' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, impact on the system, or whether the output is a snapshot vs. real-time. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about potential side effects or access requirements.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be improved by integrating the parameter context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has a simple schema (one parameter, existing output schema) and low complexity, the description should at least mention the parameter or provide nuance about the output. It does not, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the 'limit' parameter or what to expect in the return (though output schema exists).

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 input schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its purpose (e.g., controlling the number of returned processes). With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's default value.

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 shows processes consuming the most CPU and memory. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('processes'), and distinctly separates from sibling tools like docker_ps (container processes) and system_info (general system info).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as system_info or diagnostic_command. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or conditional recommendations.

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