list_top_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone is responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List top N memory-consuming processes' but fails to mention important behaviors like default values (n=10, max=100), the ability to sort by CPU, or any specifics about output. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it lacks structure for detailing options or usage. This is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and an output schema exists, so return value details are unnecessary. However, the description is minimal and does not address the ambiguity with sibling tools like 'list_memory_usage' or mention sorting flexibility. It is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks completeness for effective tool selection.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (n and sort_by) with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter semantics, but the schema handles it. However, the description mentions only 'memory-consuming' while sort_by can be 'cpu', which is slightly misleading, though the schema clarifies this.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top N memory-consuming processes'), making the tool's primary function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_memory_usage', which could overlap in purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_memory_usage' or 'find_stale_processes'. It gives no context, exclusions, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent without enough information to select between siblings.

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