apic_get_resource_utilization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned (CPU and memory metrics per node, averages, high utilization thresholds) but does not mention that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any authentication or rate limits. While the return details are useful, it lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then uses bullet points for the return values, and ends with a usage context sentence. Every sentence is necessary and contributes value with zero fluff.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, what it returns (including thresholds), and why it's useful. It covers the essential information an agent needs to decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect from the output.

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 has zero parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no params. The description adds rich meaning beyond the empty schema, specifying exactly what metrics are analyzed and returned (CPU, memory, averages, thresholds). This fully compensates for the lack of params.

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?

Clearly states that the tool analyzes CPU and memory resource utilization across the fabric. It lists specific return values (per node, averages, high utilization thresholds) and distinguishes from siblings like apic_get_cpu_utilization by covering both CPU and memory. This is a specific verb+resource combination with good 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 clear context for when to use the tool, stating it is 'Essential for performance monitoring and capacity planning.' However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where a more specific tool (e.g., only CPU) would be better, nor does it cite alternatives. This is good but not fully explicit.

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