io_pressure

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 mentions that it 'shows' stress but does not state that it is a read-only operation, what system files it reads, or what the output format will be. This is minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without wordiness or irrelevant detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps: it does not explain the nature of the returned data (e.g., PSI values like avg10, avg60, avg300) or how 'format' affects output. An agent would know the purpose but not the exact output structure.

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 description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'format' is fully described), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the format parameter or its values beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as providing PSI (Pressure Stall Information) for CPU, memory, and I/O, and states its purpose: to show if the system is under real stress. This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_overview or top_processes.

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 usage for checking system stress but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_detail or top_processes. It lacks any exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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