get_system_summary

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive safety. The description adds non-obvious return semantics: 'Usage can overlap; do not sum it' and 'Null does not imply zero usage', plus a warning against over-interpreting memory usage. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, and each caveat is a single scannable sentence. There is no filler or repetition of what the schema already provides.

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?

The description tells the agent what it will get (host/environment CPU/memory state and snapshot metadata) and gives the key interpretation caveats. It is complete enough for a no-required-parameter read tool, though it leaves the exact return shape to discovery since there is no output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents max_age_ms and snapshot_id. The description does not add detail about either parameter, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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: 'get observed host and environment CPU/memory state plus snapshot metadata'. It also frames the tool as the entry point for CPU/memory diagnosis, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling resource-listing/inspection tools.

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?

'Start CPU or memory diagnosis here' is an explicit when-to-use signal, and the cautions against inferring paging/disk I/O or memory-pressure causality provide when-not guidance. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer them over this tool.

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