CPU Optimization

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with open-world data, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by clarifying the tool's focus on resource allocation and troubleshooting, but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines in the second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation with annotations), no output schema, and clear purpose, the description is largely complete. It could slightly improve by hinting at the return format (e.g., settings structure) but is adequate for the context provided.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage.

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') and resource ('CPU optimization settings for the site'), specifying it retrieves configuration for resource allocation across user sessions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ras_site_get_load_balancing or ras_site_get_ad_integration by focusing on CPU-specific policies.

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 provides explicit usage contexts: 'review resource management policies' and 'troubleshoot performance issues', giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as ras_farm_get_performance for broader metrics.

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