system_uptime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description states it retrieves system data, which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention typical behavioral details such as return format, data freshness, or whether it accesses remote systems. It avoids contradicting any annotations (none exist) but adds limited behavioral nuance.

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 with 6 words, which is concise. It front-loads the action and resource effectively. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without becoming verbose—e.g., mentioning the return type—but it remains efficient and focused.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. For a simple read-only command, the description is complete enough to allow correct agent selection. It could mention the expected output format, but that's not critical for selection among siblings.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (all properties are covered implicitly). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add meaning beyond the schema. A score of 4 reflects that the schema is complete and no parameter information is missing.

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 specifies the verb 'get' and the resources 'system uptime and load average'. It distinguishes from siblings like system_status and system_processes by focusing on the specific metric of uptime and load average, not general status or process lists.

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 for querying system-level metrics related to uptime and load average. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like system_status (which may also provide load info) or when not to use it. It provides basic context but no exclusions or alternative tool guidance.

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