system_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scope note ('the firewall itself') and the metric categories; it says nothing about units, freshness, or cost of the call.

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 short sentence with no waste, and the resource list is front-loaded. As a bare noun phrase it lacks an explicit verb, which slightly weakens structure.

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 parameters and annotations covering safety, the remaining burden is small, but the description never states return format or units (percentages vs bytes) and gives no output schema fallback. Against several similarly named system_* siblings, that leaves the agent guessing at the payload shape.

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 description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter implications are present.

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?

Names the specific resources returned (memory, swap, disk utilisation) and scopes them to the firewall host itself, so an agent knows what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like system_status or system_information, which plausibly return overlapping host metrics.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The phrase 'of the firewall itself' hints at a scope boundary but never says when to prefer this over system_status or system_information.

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