processes/top

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a non-continuous snapshot, discloses that %CPU is measured over a short sampling interval, explains memory unit behavior with human_readable, and lays out the full output structure including header fields and process columns. This gives an agent an accurate model of invocation outcomes without hidden surprises.

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 front-loaded with a concrete analogy ('top -b -n 1') and then packs only high-value details: exact columns, units, sampling behavior, and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema boilerplate.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by enumerating the snapshot header, process table columns, memory units, and %CPU sampling semantics. Combined with the schema's rich parameter descriptions, an agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret its output correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters in detail; the description adds little beyond reinforcing the human_readable unit behavior and sampling context. It does not materially extend parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as 'A snapshot like `top -b -n 1`' with a specific verb (snapshot) and resource (processes), and enumerates the exact header and table columns. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to processes/list and processes/delete, so an agent can clearly identify what this tool uniquely does.

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 direct routing guidance: 'Use processes/list for a plain listing, processes/delete to signal a process.' This explicitly names alternatives and the conditions for choosing them, plus the header/process-table details signal when a top-style snapshot is appropriate.

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