CPU

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful snapshot semantics: current usage (%), 1/5/15 min load averages, and thermal status. No side effects are hidden, and for a read-only metric tool this is sufficient.

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 compact sentence where every listed item carries distinct information: chip, cores, usage, load, thermal state. It is front-loaded with the subject and contains no 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main return categories well. However, 'estado térmico' is somewhat vague, and with no output schema, a bit more precision about that field's format would make it fully complete.

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 is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. A baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools, since no semantic gap exists.

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 CPU-specific fields (chip, cores, current usage, load averages, thermal state), making the resource unmistakable against siblings like get_memory and get_disk. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no explicit verb; the action 'get' is only carried by the tool name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. The content strongly implies use whenever current CPU metrics are needed, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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