Get server resource usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates the data returned, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions or panel credentials it needs, or any rate-limit behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core resource and the metric categories efficiently.

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 modest read-style tool with 5 parameters, the description gives the minimum needed to understand the return content, and the schema covers most parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around safety, permissions, and the panel/credential override 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 80%, so the schema already documents panel, baseUrl, clientKey, and applicationKey. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond saying the result is for a server, which is already captured by the required server field.

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 resource and the returned metrics: current state plus CPU, memory, disk, and network usage for a server. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as server_get, server_activity, or server_console_tail, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and description alone that this is for resource telemetry rather than general server details or activity.

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