janitor_system_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the alert logic (alert=true past 85% RAM or 80% /tmp), which is genuinely non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer from the schema. It still never states outright that the tool is read-only and side-effect free, which is the one behavioral trait left unstated.

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?

Two dense sentences, metrics front-loaded and the alert threshold trailing as a qualifier. No filler, no restatement of the name, every clause carries information.

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-shape detail is not required here, and with zero params there are no input gaps. Coverage is essentially complete; only the read-only/no-side-effects guarantee is missing for a bare, annotation-free definition.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no undocumented inputs to compensate for. The 4 baseline 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?

It names a specific resource (system health: RAM/swap/tmpfs/CPU load) and enumerates exactly what is measured, including 'top-5 processes by resident memory'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling janitor_oom_inspect, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, even though janitor_oom_inspect and janitor_scan_orphans sit in the same diagnostic family. Context is only implied by the metrics listed, not by any explicit use condition or exclusion.

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