System overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely extra fact — 'Read from /proc' — which signals a cheap, side-effect-free Linux procfs snapshot, but it stops there: nothing about platform assumptions, failure behavior on non-Linux hosts, or snapshot freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded clause lists the payload, and a four-word trailing sentence explains the source. Every word earns its place, with no preamble or filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and for a zero-parameter read tool there is little else an agent must know to call it correctly. The only shortfall is the absent routing guidance relative to the diagnostic siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents or clutters this.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (hostname, OS/kernel, uptime, load averages, CPU count, memory and swap), which pins the resource down precisely. It never names or contrasts the siblings (disk_usage, top_processes, service_status) that overlap in system-diagnostic territory, so the boundary between this summary tool and the topic-specific ones is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no alternative named. An agent can loosely infer that this is the general first-stop snapshot before drilling into disk_usage or top_processes, but that inference is never stated and no prerequisites or platform conditions are given.

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