get_cpu_late_limit_permille

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds context by specifying the value type (UINT8), range (0–100), and default (10), but does not mention safety, side effects, or permissions. It is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: one sentence explaining the parameter, followed by a requirement note and a concise bracket summary of type/range/default. No redundant information.

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?

For a simple getter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the parameter's meaning, constraints, and prerequisite. It could be slightly improved by stating the return format explicitly, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is high (4). The description adds value beyond schema by providing the meaning, range, and default for the returned value, which helps the agent interpret the result.

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 that the tool gets the 'cpu_late_limit_permille' parameter, explains it as 'CPU late task limit in permille', and describes its function ('Controls scheduler behaviour when tasks are running late'). This is specific and distinct among numerous sibling getter tools.

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 mentions a requirement ('Requires: USE_LATE_TASK_STATISTICS'), which implies the tool is only relevant when that feature is enabled. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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