get_process_metrics

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

No annotations present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool collects top 10 CPU and memory consumers, which implies a read-only sampling. However, it does not mention permissions, potential performance impact, or whether it returns instantaneous or averaged data.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite simplicity, the description lacks details about the output format or structure, given there is no output schema. It could mention whether results are sorted, if both CPU and memory are in one list or separate, and typical usage context. The single parameter is well-handled, but the behavioral summary omits important completeness for a tool with only a description.

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 already documents top_n with meaning (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that the statistics are for CPU and memory consumers, narrowing the context from generic process statistics. This clarifies that the tool returns both types, not just one metric.

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 collects process statistics with a focus on top 10 CPU and memory consumers. The verb 'collects' and resource 'process statistics' are specific, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like get_cpu_metrics or get_memory_metrics which likely provide aggregate metrics rather than per-process details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like profile_process or search_processes. The description only states what it does without indicating prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.

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