System Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and 'without changing the host' essentially restates that safety profile rather than extending it. The description adds no new behavioral context such as sampling window, refresh cost, or what the summary aggregates across. No contradiction with 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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, the three measured resources, and the non-mutating guarantee. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The description usefully scopes 'fixed-disk' (excluding network/removable volumes) against a large sibling set, though it could say more about what the aggregate summary contains given how many granular siblings exist.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty and fully covered, leaving no parameter semantics 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?

States a specific verb (summarize) and explicit resource scope (CPU, memory, fixed-disk pressure), so an agent knows it is an aggregate read rather than a single-subsystem query. It does not explicitly name cpu_status/memory_status/disk_status as the granular alternatives, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when a consolidated health snapshot is wanted rather than per-subsystem detail. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over cpu_status, memory_status, or disk_status, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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