show_cpu

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like the method of data collection, potential performance impact, or required user roles. It only describes the output but not side effects or constraints.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose. Although the Args section is integrated, there is no redundancy. It earns its place without wasted words, though it could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter description into the prose.

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?

The description provides a good overview of the output scope and parameter source, and an output schema exists so return values are covered. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for a single-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 0% but the description adds meaningful context for the sole parameter 'device', stating it is 'the name of the device as defined in devices.yaml', which clarifies the source of valid values beyond the schema's simple 'Device' label.

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 'Show CPU utilization on a network device' and specifies 'Returns CPU usage per core/process to identify resource bottlenecks', providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_memory or show_environment.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring device connectivity or permissions, and does not mention 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.