Get System Overview

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds little behavioral context beyond listing output fields, which the output schema already covers, and the cryptic 'sysstat TYPE=all' note is not actionable because the tool takes no parameters.

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?

The first sentence is concise and front-loads the purpose. The second sentence is cryptic, uses code formatting for an internal command, and does not clearly help an agent invoke or select the tool, so it does not fully earn its 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?

Complexity is low: no parameters, read-only annotation, and an existing output schema. The description provides enough high-level content for invocation, though it could say more about when to choose this overview over the many narrower diagnostic tools.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; there are no input fields for the description to clarify. The mention of 'TYPE=all' could imply a nonexistent parameter, but it does not reduce the fundamental adequacy for a no-parameter tool.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get system overview') and enumerates the returned data categories (CPU, memory, traffic, version, uptime, online users). It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from narrower siblings such as get_version_info or get_memory_history, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus the many specific diagnostic siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives to route the agent.

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