get_system_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it monitors performance indicators and OS support, but does not disclose potential side effects (assumed read-only), prerequisites (e.g., smartctl for S.M.A.R.T.), or error scenarios. 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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple monitoring tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main points (metrics collected, OS support). Could optionally mention output format, but is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% (2 parameters both described). The description adds context about what is monitored (CPU, RAM, disk, S.M.A.R.T.) which maps to checkSmartHealth, but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool monitors system performance indicators (CPU, RAM, disk space, S.M.A.R.T. health) and supports Windows and Linux. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_system_logs or get_service_states which focus on logs or service states.

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 through the description (monitoring performance), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No alternatives among siblings are mentioned.

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