system_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden, but it only states what the tool gets without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or output format. The verb 'Get' implies read-only behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that presents the primary purpose up front with no extraneous words. Every word contributes value.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional parameter, and the description covers its core function. However, it lacks any note about return format, platform constraints, or typical use cases, and the absence of an output schema makes the description the only source for such context. This is a minimally viable level of completeness.

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 schema already provides a complete description for the single 'include' parameter, including enum values and a default. The tool description's list of stats mirrors the enum options but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function via a specific verb and resource ('Get system resource usage') and enumerates the categories (CPU, RAM, disk, network, uptime). This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on files, commands, services, and firewall.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The user must infer usage solely from the tool name and generic description.

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