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 safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by specifying that the readings are live (a current, non-historical snapshot) and that the intended use is a pre-flight load check, which implies polling cost if called repeatedly and that values are instantaneous rather than averaged.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the payload, the second defines the use case. The metric list is front-loaded before the guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters there are no input semantics to cover. The description plus annotations give an agent everything needed to call this correctly for a simple read-only monitoring tool.

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 for the schema or description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, with no gaps introduced by the 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?

It states a specific verb-and-resource pair and enumerates exactly what is returned: CPU load, memory usage, disk I/O, and network throughput. That is far more concrete than a bare 'get resource usage', though it never contrasts itself with the adjacent get_system_info sibling, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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 second sentence gives a clear triggering context: check load before running expensive operations, with concrete examples (search, large file copies). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a cheaper alternative for checking system state.

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