top_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that it uses `ps` and is fast, but fails to disclose output format (e.g., columns such as PID, command, CPU%, MEM%), whether the limit parameter caps the result count, or any side effects. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior beyond the basic function.

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 filler words. It packs the essential information (purpose, sorting options, and performance note) into a compact form. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 simple and has no output schema, so the description is the primary source of context. It covers the core behavior and sortable metrics, but lacks details about the returned data structure, units, and the effect of `limit`. For a read-only tool, this is an adequate yet incomplete description, as the agent cannot fully anticipate the output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for `sort_by` by explicitly stating it is 'cpu' or 'mem'. However, `limit` is only implied via 'top processes' and its default of 15 is not mentioned. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other to inference, which is partially acceptable for an obvious parameter.

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's function: 'Top processes by cpu or mem' with the underlying `ps` command. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `memory_info` or `disk_usage`, as it specifically targets process-level resource usage. The verb 'top' implies listing/sorting, and the resource is 'processes'.

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 implies when to use the tool: for a quick view of top CPU or memory processes, highlighted by 'fast'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though no direct process-listing alternative exists among siblings. The sort_by clarification gives some usage context but not full guidelines.

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