Get Top Processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that — it doesn't explain how CPU/memory usage is sampled, whether results are a snapshot, or what the returned fields look like.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the ordering criterion is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little substance.

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 simple read-only tool with defaulted parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves the sampling semantics of 'CPU or memory usage' undefined, which matters for interpreting the ranking.

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 parameters (count, sort_by) are documented in the schema with defaults, bounds, and an enum. The description echoes the general shape ('top N', 'CPU or memory') but omits the 'pid' sort option, so it adds nothing beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get top N processes') plus the ordering criterion, which separates it from the plain list_processes sibling. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with list_processes or get_process, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 guidance is given: nothing says when to prefer this over list_processes or get_process, nor whether the counts are instantaneous or averaged over an interval. The agent must guess the intended context.

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