get_system_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It explicitly states 'Read-only', discloses that individual gather failures fall back to zero values in the errors field and are 'never fatal', and warns about the performance weight. These behavioral traits are not visible elsewhere and are valuable for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 four sentences and every sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it returns, read-only nature, failure fallback behavior, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and maintains high information density without fluff.

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 description is complete for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema. It covers the composition of the snapshot, error behavior, and usage context. It also successfully differentiates itself from the highly similar sibling get_docker_system_snapshot by including both system and Docker data. The output schema likely details the return structure, so no further field listing is needed.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to describe. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and the empty schema with 100% coverage confirms this.

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 returns a 'comprehensive snapshot' and enumerates the included data categories (system, CPU, temperature, memory, disk, network, load, top processes, Docker). It distinguishes itself from target-specific siblings by emphasizing 'in one call' and positioning it as a 'broad overview' tool.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for a broad overview; prefer targeted tools for deep questions.' It also warns that this is 'the heaviest call in the server,' informing the agent about performance trade-offs. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction relative to the many sibling get_* tools.

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