homebutler

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully notes that checks are performed 'against configured thresholds,' implying these are pre-configured values, but fails to confirm the read-only nature of the operation, describe the alert output format, or mention any potential side effects like log generation.

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 of 12 words with zero redundancy. Every word serves the core purpose of explaining what the tool does, making it an optimally concise definition.

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 single-parameter monitoring tool, the description adequately covers the functional scope (what alerts are checked), but lacks completeness regarding the return behavior since no output schema exists. It should ideally describe the alert format or at least confirm this is a reporting operation given the absence of output schema and annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'server' parameter, the schema adequately documents the optional remote execution behavior. The main description adds no specific parameter guidance, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage—the description focuses on the operation rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the exact resource types monitored (CPU, memory, disk) as well as the comparison logic ('against configured thresholds'). While this clearly delineates the tool's monitoring function, it does not explicitly distinguish when to choose this over the 'system_status' sibling tool.

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 invoke this tool versus alternatives like 'system_status' or other diagnostic tools. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria to help the agent determine appropriate usage context.

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