system_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds useful detail about the snapshot contents and the summary return format, but it does not disclose potential edge behaviors such as remote-host requirements or command execution context beyond what the schema already notes for host.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and organized into Description, Args, and Returns sections. It is concise, though the Args section adds little beyond the schema and could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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 snapshot tool, the description covers the main metrics returned and the output summary format. The output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, so the description is mostly complete; it only lacks explicit routing guidance relative to similar system inspection siblings.

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's Args line only restates parameter names ('host (opcionalis), response_format') without adding semantic value. The meaningful meaning of host (local vs configured remote) and response_format (markdown/json) comes from the input schema's own descriptions. With the reported 0% description coverage, the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: it provides a 'quick health snapshot' with CPU%, RAM, swap, disk (/), load average, and top 5 processes. This clearly differentiates it from more focused siblings like cpu_usage, memory_usage, disk_usage, and process_list by presenting itself as a combined overview.

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 phrase 'Gyors egeszseg-pillanatkep' implies use for a quick overall health check, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives or exclusions. An agent is left to infer which sibling tool fits specific scenarios.

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