system_load

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the metric but does not disclose whether this is a current snapshot, whether it represents a read-only operation, what the output structure looks like, or any caveats. For a simple read tool this is a notable gap.

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 concise phrase with no waste. It is front-loaded with the metric being reported and every word adds value.

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?

Given this is a zero-parameter read tool, the description is adequate, but with no annotations and no details about the return format beyond the existence of an output schema, the agent is left to infer some behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description is still minimal.

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 the schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description adds meaning about what the returned data represents. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 '1/5/10 minute load averages' clearly identifies the resource (system load) and the specific metric (1/5/10 minute load averages). It distinguishes this from other system_* tools like system_cpu, system_memory, system_disk. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource and metric are specific enough.

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 implies this tool is used to check system load averages, and the meaning is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like system_cpu or system_resource_usage_latest, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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