cpu_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get detailed CPU metrics,' implying a read-only operation but failing to mention any constraints, side effects, or specifics like sampling behavior, rate limits, or data format. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic verb.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative. It earns its place but does not add enough detail to justify its brevity. A 3 reflects that it is not verbose but lacks substance.

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 no annotations, a simple parameter, and the existence of an output schema, the description should at least enumerate the types of CPU metrics returned (e.g., usage, temperature, load). It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess the exact output. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for effective use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (sample_seconds) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain its meaning or effect. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema's property definition, leaving the agent uninformed about how sample_seconds affects results.

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 'Get detailed CPU metrics' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('CPU metrics'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like battery_metrics or disk_metrics. While 'detailed' is vague, the tool's name and the sibling set make its purpose evident.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tool names (e.g., battery_metrics, disk_metrics) imply that cpu_metrics is for CPU-specific data, giving implicit context. No when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons are provided.

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