system_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only, immediate check operation which is appropriate, but lacks details about side effects, units of measurement, or refresh behavior. It is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that conveys the purpose and scope without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for a parameterless tool.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for this simple read-only tool. It describes the input (none) and the high-level output scope well. A minor gap is not specifying whether the output format is raw metrics or human-readable, but this does not critically impair an agent's ability to use it.

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% because there are zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents the interface. The description adds value by explaining what data the agent will receive, which is a bonus beyond the empty schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current system status') along with the data components covered ('CPU, RAM, and Disk usage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like system_uptime, docker_stats, and system_processes which cover more narrow or different aspects of system monitoring.

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 this is a general health check tool, which fits with no parameters and siblings covering sub-topics. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus more specific tools like system_uptime or system_processes, nor when not to use it.

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