Get add-on resource stats

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the raw return shape (CPU percent, memory usage/limit, network/block I/O counters) and three concrete error modes, including the SUPERVIZOR_TOKEN env-var prerequisite. That auth/environment constraint is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then scoping, returns, and errors in clearly labeled sections, so an agent can scan it quickly. The error block is somewhat verbose (the full token-error string is quoted), which is slightly more than strictly needed, but every line still carries information.

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-only stats tool with an output schema, this description covers purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, return shape, and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the single slug parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the pointer to supervisor_list_addons. The description adds no further slug syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('an add-on's current runtime resource usage') and even discloses the backing endpoint GET /addons/<slug>/stats. It explicitly distinguishes this snapshot tool from historical-usage tools, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like supervisor_get_addon_logs without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' trigger ('checking whether an add-on is consuming unexpected resources') and an explicit 'Not for' exclusion ('historical usage over time — this returns only a snapshot'). It also routes the agent to supervisor_list_addons as the source of slugs, leaving nothing to inference.

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