get_uptime

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish this as a safe, local read, so the description's burden is low. It adds that load averages are included alongside uptime, which is modestly useful return-content context, but says nothing about the machine's time units or the load-average windows.

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 naming both outputs with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 parameterless, well-annotated read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs in order to choose and call it. Only minor detail, such as the units of uptime and the 1/5/15-minute load windows, is absent.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Get system uptime') and it also names the secondary data returned ('load averages'). It does not distinguish itself from the similar read-only siblings get_system_info, get_cpu_info, or get_memory_info, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 implied only: it's clearly a diagnostic read, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_cpu_info or get_system_info, nor any exclusions. For a zero-parameter info tool that gap is small but real.

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