System Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: no scope of the status check, no indication of whether it is a cheap local probe or an expensive remote aggregation, no return shape, no failure behavior. The four-word phrase adds zero behavioral context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — the single fragment could be five times longer and still be tight. Nothing in it earns its place because nothing informative is said.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about this tool, and it provides none. An agent cannot tell what the status payload contains or whether calling it is safe, cheap, or redundant with 'health'.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is moot here.

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?

"Get system status" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, so it is a tautology rather than a description of what data is retrieved (CPU, memory, disk, uptime, services?). It does not distinguish the tool from the sibling 'health' or from the specific resource tools like cpu_usage, memory_usage and disk_usage.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus 'health', the individual resource tools, or process_list. An agent choosing among 30 siblings gets no routing signal at all from this description.

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