GetCpuloadavg5mData

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns real-time or historical data. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the data source (AlibabaCloud ECS).

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?

Given the complexity of a monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., numeric values, timestamps), how to interpret the load average, or error conditions. For a tool that fetches metric data, more context on the output is needed.

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%, with both parameters (InstanceIds and RegionId) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 '获取CPU五分钟平均负载指标数据' (Get CPU five-minute average load metric data) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource (CPU load data), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like GetCpuloadavg15mData or GetCpuLoadavgData. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over GetCpuloadavg15mData (15-minute average) or GetCpuLoadavgData (general load data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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