Get Load Monitoring

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the scope of metrics covered, but says nothing about snapshot-vs-history semantics, sampling interval, or freshness — relevant because the description calls the traffic figure '实时' (realtime).

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 compact clause with the resource name up front and the metric list immediately after. No filler sentences and nothing to trim.

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 described, and there are no parameters to explain. What is missing is the distinction from the other monitoring siblings and whether the values are instantaneous or historical; that gap is modest for a zero-arg read 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 the schema has nothing to document and there is no semantics gap to fill. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ('获取' / get) and resource ('负载监控' / load monitoring), then enumerates the three metrics returned: CPU, memory, realtime traffic. That enumeration distinguishes it from the narrower sibling get_memory_history, though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With siblings like get_memory_history, get_line_monitoring, get_system_overview and get_wireless_monitoring in the same monitoring family, the agent is left to infer which one to call.

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