get_cpu_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what data is returned (model, usage %, temperature, frequency) in the absence of an output schema, though it omits units, freshness, and whether values are instantaneous or averaged.

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 listing exactly the returned metrics with no filler. Every clause maps to a distinct piece of output.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description's job is to describe return values, which it does at a reasonable level. It stays a notch short of complete by not stating units for temperature/frequency or how usage is sampled.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a fixed, unfiltered snapshot with nothing to configure.

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 CPU model, usage percentage, temperature, and frequency'), which is unambiguous against siblings like get_memory_info or get_gpu_info. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from get_system_info or get_thermal_info, which partially overlap on temperature/system data.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and returned fields; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_thermal_info or get_system_info, and no exclusions. For a zero-argument read tool this is mostly harmless, but the guidance is absent rather than provided.

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