get_resource_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it requires a DSM administrator account and other accounts receive permission_denied, plus it flags the data as live. It doesn't discuss sampling windows or response shape, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and metrics, then auth constraint, then the disambiguation pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 parameterless read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, the auth prerequisite and failure mode, when to call it, and which sibling to use for adjacent data.

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 nothing the description needs to disambiguate; baseline for zero-param tools applies. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

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 and resource (get live resource utilization) and enumerates the metrics returned: CPU load, memory, disk I/O, network throughput. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_system_info by naming what that tool covers instead.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('check if the NAS is under heavy load before starting expensive work on it') and routes the agent elsewhere for model/firmware/temperature/uptime. No inference required.

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