get_cpu_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses read-only access, the data sources (/proc/stat and /proc/cpuinfo), and the fatal condition (unreadable source). This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond just saying 'read-only.'

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return values, followed by read-only nature, fatal condition, and use case. Every sentence contributes meaning with 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so return format coverage is handled. The description covers purpose, data sources, fatal behavior, and usage context, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the tool's internal behavior (reading from specific proc files) but does not need to document parameters. Baseline 4 for no parameters is appropriate.

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: 'Returns CPU model, frequency, core count, and current usage percent.' The verb 'Returns' plus the resource (CPU) and specific output fields make it distinct from siblings like get_cpu_temperature and get_load_average.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use for capacity planning or busy/idle checks.' While it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use, it provides clear applicable scenarios, earning a 4.

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