system_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that results reflect the container, not the host, when run inside one. But it omits the return format, whether the call can fail or block, and any permission implications — the enumerated metrics are the only behavioral detail, which is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and scope in one pass, and the second adds the single most decision-relevant caveat (container vs. host). The key scope constraint is front-loaded, and nothing extraneous is included.

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 simple, one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient — it names the metrics returned and the execution scope. The only real gap is that no output shape is described anywhere, but given the low complexity, the level of detail is near-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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'server' parameter as an optional remote target that runs locally if omitted. The description's 'machine this binary runs on' phrasing reinforces this but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('system status') and enumerates the concrete metrics (CPU, memory, disk usage, uptime). It also pins the scope precisely to 'the machine this binary runs on', which distinguishes it from container-level tools like docker_stats in the sibling list.

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 conveys clear context about scope — it targets the local/host machine and clarifies the container boundary ('Inside a container that is the container, not the host underneath it'). However, it never names an alternative like docker_stats or proxmox_status, or states when NOT to use it, so an agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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