get_system_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get system monitor data' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what format the data is in. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with just three words: 'Get system monitor data'. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to the core meaning without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (implied by 'system monitor data', which could involve various metrics) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, in what format, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely provides detailed system information, this minimal description falls short of being fully helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond this, as it correctly implies no inputs are required. This aligns well with the schema, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for this scenario.

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 system monitor data' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('system monitor data'), which is better than a tautology. However, it's vague about what specific data is retrieved (e.g., CPU, memory, network metrics) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_system_info', which might overlap in functionality. This leaves the purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as comparing it to 'get_system_info' or other monitoring-related tools in the sibling list. This lack of usage instructions makes it unclear when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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