system_uptime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Host uptime' only names the subject. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or what form the returned uptime takes.

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?

'Host uptime' is extremely short, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read. It is more of a fragment than a structured sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 trivial inputless status read with an output schema present, 'Host uptime' conveys the core purpose sufficiently. It leaves slight ambiguity about what exactly 'Host' means and does not orient the agent to sibling tools, but no invocation detail is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively complete, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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?

'Host uptime' clearly identifies a specific metric and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling system_* tools that report info, CPU, memory, load, or disk. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'Returns' or 'Gets', so it is clear but not fully specified.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of system_info, system_cpu, system_memory, or other status tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context prerequisites.

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