get_cpu_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data categories returned, which is the most relevant behavior here, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, whether it requires elevated privileges, whether readings are instantaneous snapshots, or whether the call is cheap. A 'Get' verb implies read-only, but that is inference rather than 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?

A single front-loaded sentence using a colon-delimited list; every clause earns its place by naming a returned metric, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does name the four metric families an agent would receive. It falls short of describing the shape of the response (e.g., how per-core values are keyed), which is the remaining gap for a tool whose output is otherwise undocumented.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space describing non-existent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CPU information') and then enumerates the exact metrics returned (core counts, utilization overall/per-core, clock frequency, load averages). The enumerated metrics are inherently CPU-specific and separate it from get_memory_info, get_disk_info, and get_system_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name plus the metric list make it obvious this is the tool for CPU stats, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over get_system_info (which likely overlaps) or any preconditions. For a zero-argument informational tool this is acceptable but thin.

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