get_cpu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does by revealing the exact underlying commands per platform ('show processes cpu history' / 'show system resources'), indicating the read-only nature and platform-dependent behavior. It doesn't cover output format or nuances, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose; the second adds useful platform-specific commands. Every token earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers platform variability (IOS/IOS-XE vs NX-OS) and the action. It doesn't waste space on redundant return-value details since the output schema exists.

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%, and the description doesn't mention the 'device' parameter. Nevertheless, the parameter is self-explanatory as the target device for the query, and its role is implied by the tool name and command examples. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's title/type.

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 uses 'Show CPU utilization' as a specific verb+resource statement, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_memory or get_environment. It additionally provides platform-specific commands, reinforcing the tool's exact purpose.

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 use for checking CPU utilization (via name and 'Show CPU utilization') and provides platform-specific command context for IOS/IOS-XE vs NX-OS. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like get_memory or get_environment.

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