cpu_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns aggregated/per-core percentages and load average, which is useful output context. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as remote host requirements beyond the schema, rate limits, or whether it may block or take time to execute.

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 short and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. The main capability is front-loaded in the first clause. No superfluous text or repetition of annotation data appears, though the Hungarian phrasing is slightly compact.

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 simple read-only monitoring tool, the description covers the core purpose, parameter names, and return type. The schema provides details for host and response_format, and annotations cover safety. Missing is any mention of output format specifics or when to prefer this over related monitoring tools, but that gap is minor for this low-complexity tool.

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 description merely lists 'host, response_format' under Args without explaining their meaning. Schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, and while the nested schema contains descriptions, the tool description itself does not compensate for the wrapper parameter being opaque. It adds minimal value over the raw parameter names.

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 states the resource (CPU) and the specific metrics returned: aggregated and per-core percentages, and load average. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_usage or disk_usage. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the Returns line makes the retrieval intent obvious.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention that memory_usage, disk_usage, or system_status should be used for other resource metrics, nor does it give exclusions or conditions. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and resource focus.

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