system_cpu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only identifies the subject as CPU information, without stating whether this is a read-only query, what metrics are included, whether it samples current state, or whether any side effects occur.

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 extremely concise with no filler, but it is also under-informative and largely restates the tool name. Brevity is achieved at the expense of useful content, making it too sparse to be considered well-structured.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be fully described, the description still fails to give enough context to select this tool over similar system_* tools. The agent cannot tell what makes system_cpu different from system_load or system_info.

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 coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is required. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 'CPU information.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, with no verb or detail about what aspect of the CPU is returned. It does not distinguish system_cpu from closely related siblings like system_load, system_info, or system_uptime.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many other system_* tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or context are provided, so the agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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