get_system_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the tool has no parameters or side-effect indicators, but the description does not disclose platform dependencies, potential permission requirements, or retry behavior. This is adequate for a simple status read but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to specifying what the tool returns, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool, the description is largely complete: it names the metric domains and implies a current snapshot. However, it does not specify return units or output structure, and there is no output schema to compensate, leaving minor ambiguity for the agent about expected response formatting.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful meaning by naming the exact metric categories (CPU, memory, disk) that the agent can expect, which is valuable even though no input is required.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource scope: current CPU, memory, and disk usage statistics. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_network_connections and list_processes, leaving no ambiguity about what resource domain it covers.

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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever current system resource usage is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list and the specific resource scope make the intended usage context obvious.

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