get_system_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the diagnostic content of the response (hung windows, unendable processes, memory pressure, leaks) that an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not mention snapshot cost or latency for a whole-system sweep.

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 content inventory is front-loaded in the first sentence and the routing cue closes it in four words. The single sentence is dense and run-on, but every listed item conveys a distinct capability rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so comprehensively by category, including the attention/anomaly section. It omits response shape and any note about the expense of a full-system snapshot, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with a default of 5. The description never references `top`, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 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?

Names a concrete resource (the whole PC) and enumerates exactly what is returned: CPU, memory, disks, network, GPUs, process/thread/handle counts, uptime, busiest processes, and attention items. This clearly separates it from the single-resource siblings (get_cpu, get_disks, get_memory) as the aggregate view.

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 place to start" is an explicit entry-point directive that tells the agent to call this before drilling into per-resource tools. It stops short of naming specific follow-up siblings or stating when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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