vyos_system_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a dict with output from 'show system' commands, implying it is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any safety or authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential performance impacts. While the description is honest, it lacks some transparency typical for a well-documented tool.

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: two sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately provides detail about return structure. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It conveys what the tool does, what it returns (a dict with keys cpu, memory, storage, uptime), and its typical use case (quick health snapshot). No significant gaps remain.

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, so the input schema is trivial. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because there are none, and the description's purpose is already covered by the overall tool description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get router system resources: CPU, memory, storage, and uptime.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('system resources'), and the context of sibling tools shows this is distinct from other VyOS tools like vyos_bgp_summary or vyos_show.

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 implies usage for a 'quick health snapshot of the router,' which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand its context.

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