get_load_average

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, sourced from '/proc/loadavg', and that it is 'fatal only if unreadable' – providing concrete error behavior. However, it doesn't describe the output shape or any potential side effects, though output schema exists to cover returns.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently covers purpose, source, safety, and usage alternative without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, the data source, and failure mode. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to add; there is no risk of ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns 1-, 5-, and 15-minute load averages.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_cpu_info and get_system_health_check by focusing on load averages. The mention of '/proc/loadavg' further specifies the source.

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 explicitly states 'Use as a quick utilization check' and names an alternative: 'get_system_health_check compares load against core count.' This provides both a clear when-to-use and directs the agent to an alternative when core comparisons are needed.

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