System totals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the diagnostic 'confirm connectivity' framing and nothing about auth needs or rate limits; with rich annotations this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the returned-field list comes first and the usage hint second, both earning their place.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the fields it returns, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it could state the response shape more precisely.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents or omits input behavior because there is no input.

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?

The description names the exact resource and enumerates the returned fields (panel version, OS, CPU cores, CPU usage, physical memory), so an agent knows precisely what this tool surfaces. It doesn't name any sibling, but the field list is specific enough to separate it from panel_disk_info and panel_network_status.

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?

"Use this first to confirm connectivity" gives explicit ordering guidance and a clear context for calling it, and "see what the box looks like" frames it as the overview entry point. There is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling supersedes it for deeper metrics.

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