VPS capacity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses determinism, read-only behavior, local OS evidence only, current-state scope, and explicitly states no mutation, shell, SSH, network, or secrets. This gives an agent a complete safety and behavior profile.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the user's likely question, then gives the result format, scope, and constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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?

An output schema is present, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers purpose, input constraints, safety, and scope thoroughly, making it complete for a zero-input read-only tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description additionally states 'Input must be exactly {}', which reinforces the schema's empty object requirement and removes any ambiguity about needing arguments.

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 that the tool returns a deterministic read-only pressure assessment (OK | PRESSURED | UNKNOWN) for CPU load and memory, built from local OS evidence only. It also scopes the behavior to current state and explicitly excludes prediction and upgrade advice, which distinguishes it from the sibling health tool.

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 question form and exclusions imply this tool is for current capacity checks rather than prediction or upgrade guidance. However, it never explicitly names the sibling tool or states when to prefer one over the other, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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