System Status

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the reporting verb, so no contradiction exists. Beyond the annotation, the description adds little behavioral context: it doesn't say whether values are a live point-in-time snapshot, how often they refresh, or whether "primary disk" is a fixed selection — all useful for an agent deciding whether to trust the numbers.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource list, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. Every clause names a distinct metric.

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 zero parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema that already documents return values, the description only needs to convey scope — which it does via the metric list. The minor residual gap is that the scope of "primary disk" and the freshness of readings are undefined.

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 applies and the description correctly makes no parameter claims. The enumeration of metrics serves as the semantic content of the call, which is the right thing to emphasize for a no-arg tool.

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 uses a specific verb ("Report") and enumerates the exact resources returned: CPU utilization, RAM usage, primary disk capacity, and uptime. That enumeration separates it from a narrower sibling like disk_usage_report, though the description never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named for overlapping needs such as disk_usage_report or git_status. The monitoring/health-check use case is only weakly implied by the list of metrics.

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