running_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sort order and implicitly that this is a read operation, but says nothing about required server access/credentials, whether output is truncated beyond the limit, or any rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ordering constraint is stated in the same breath as the purpose. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the parameters are fully documented. However, for a tool that reaches out to a named inventory server, the description omits any note about connectivity, authentication, or failure modes, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 both 'server' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema, including the default of 20 and the CPU-descending sort. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List the top processes') with the ordering stated explicitly, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as cpu_usage or docker_ps, which an agent might otherwise confuse for process-level listing.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for per-process CPU analysis rather than aggregate CPU reporting.

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