system_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get') that accesses an internal endpoint, implying no side effects. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or performance impact, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds a source note without verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return fields (CPU, memory, disk, uptime) and the data source. It does not explain the exact output format or error cases, but the context is largely complete for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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 per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it implicitly states what data is returned (CPU, memory, disk, uptime), which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves current server load metrics including CPU, memory, disk, and uptime. The verb 'Get' and resource 'server load metrics' are specific, and the listed fields provide precise scope. Among sibling tools, none directly overlap in purpose, making it distinct.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly for server-level monitoring, there are sibling tools like 'site_resources' that may offer per-site metrics, but no explicit differentiation or usage context is given.

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