get_system_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it fetches a 'live snapshot', implying read-only behavior, but does not mention that `cpu_sample_seconds` can block the call or any other side effects. The schema provides this detail, but since the description does not, it is only minimally transparent.

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 concise and efficient, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly conveys the tool's function and a key parameter hint. No wasted words or redundant 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?

The tool is simple with a single nested parameter, and the output schema is present, so return format is known. The description covers the main purpose and the scope parameter, but does not explain edge cases or error handling. However, given the simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description mentions `scope` and its purpose (limiting response to one subsystem), but this information is already present in the schema's description for the enum and the input object. It does not mention `cpu_sample_seconds` at all. Given the context signal of 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it fails to do so for one of the two parameters.

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: fetching a live snapshot of host CPU, memory, and disk metrics. It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('host metrics'), and the scope of the tool is obvious. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools (manage_docker_containers, analyze_local_logs) which handle containers and logs, not system metrics.

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 clear context on what the tool does (metrics fetching) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident and the siblings are clearly different, so an agent can infer when to select this tool. It also offers guidance on using the `scope` parameter, which aids in efficient usage.

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