get_cpu_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive ('Does not modify system state') and describes its read-only nature. It could add more on return format, but the output schema exists to fill that 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?

Three sentences, all information-dense. The key resource and scope are front-loaded, followed by usage context and a behavioral note. No filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete. It explains what data is returned, when to use it, and that it's non-destructive. It could mention the output schema structure, but that's redundant since the output schema exists.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already trivially covers everything. The description adds useful information about what the output contains (overall/per-core percentages, load averages), which enriches understanding beyond the empty schema.

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 what the tool does: returns current CPU utilization as overall and per-core percentages plus load averages. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_memory_usage or get_disk_usage.

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 context ('when investigating high CPU usage, system slowness, or load-related issues') and notes it does not modify system state. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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