Live network and load

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that network counters are 'cumulative' and values 'realtime', which hints at monotonic counters versus instantaneous gauges — modest value beyond the annotations, but no detail on refresh behavior or output shape.

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 efficient sentence with the resource list front-loaded and zero filler. It is terse to the point of being slightly under-specified rather than padded.

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 no-arg read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but stops short of describing what the returned fields look like (units, percentage vs bytes, counter semantics). An agent can call it correctly but cannot anticipate the response.

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 per the calibration baseline a 4 applies and the description has no parameter semantics to compensate for.

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 concrete resources returned (CPU, memory, load average, network traffic counters) and the 'realtime' scope, so an agent knows this is a live stats read. However, the verb is only implied, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling panel_system_total, which plausibly reports overlapping system 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 conditions, and no mention of the nearest alternative (panel_system_total). Nothing tells an agent when to prefer this tool over its sibling.

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