GetCpuUsageData

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or output format. For a data retrieval tool in a cloud environment, this omission is significant and leaves the agent guessing about operational 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 without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.

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 cloud resource monitoring, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., time series, averages, granularity), error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving gaps for effective agent use in a rich toolset environment.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (InstanceIds as an array of ECS instance IDs, RegionId with a default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema itself is well-documented, meeting the baseline for adequate coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('ECS实例的CPU使用率数据' meaning 'ECS instance CPU usage data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetCpuloadavgData or GetMemUsageData, but the specificity of 'CPU使用率' (CPU usage rate) provides some implicit distinction.

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 sibling tools like GetCpuloadavgData (which might provide load averages) or GetMemUsageData (for memory), nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for usage beyond the basic function.

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