getDashboardTopCpuUsage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it retrieves top devices by CPU usage, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or if there are any side effects. The safety profile is unclear, and missing details like pagination or response format reduce transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Get the top devices by CPU usage for a site') and adds a brief purpose. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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 has 2 optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides the key functionality but does not explain the return format (e.g., is it a list, sorted, limited count?). For a simple read tool, it is mostly complete but lacks output details that could affect agent understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters (e.g., what constitutes 'top' or how siteId default works). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'get', the resource 'top devices by CPU usage', and the scope 'for a site'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getDashboardTopMemoryUsage by focusing specifically on CPU usage, making it easy for an agent to select this tool over alternatives.

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 mentions it is 'useful for identifying overloaded devices', which implies a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., getDashboardTopMemoryUsage). The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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