Get CPU usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover behavioral traits. The description adds the API endpoint but does not elaborate on additional behaviors like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond the annotations.

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 contains two sentences, but the first is redundant with the title ('Get CPU usage'). The second provides useful endpoint info. It could be more concise with minimal loss of 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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., time series data format). However, the parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the tool's complexity is low. It is adequate but missing return value context.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get CPU usage for one or more resources' and includes the specific API endpoint (GET /metrics/cpu). This distinguishes it from sibling metric tools (e.g., render_get_memory) by specifying the metric type (CPU) and resource scope.

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 implies usage for retrieving CPU metrics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_* tools). No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it is provided.

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