Local CPU and memory statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Read-only and offline,' which conveys that the tool has no side effects and works without network. This is valuable disclosure, though it doesn't detail return format or exact content beyond the listed metrics.

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 front-loads the action ('Read') and resource, with zero fluff. Every word earns 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?

For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what it reads, that it's read-only and offline. An agent can invoke it without any further clarification.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter explanation is needed, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate here.

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 states the verb 'Read' and the resource: Omarchy CPU/memory statistics plus local load averages and uptime. It distinguishes itself from siblings like system_info and health_check by focusing on resource metrics, making it unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving resource statistics but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like system_info or health_check. The 'Read-only and offline' hint suggests safety, but there is no direct comparison to siblings.

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