Get system stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful details like 'short sample' for CPU measurement and 'df -kP' for disk usage, indicating implementation specifics. This adds value but does not cover full return behavior.

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 key metrics. There is no wasted wording, and it efficiently communicates the tool's output scope.

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 no output schema, the description lists the categories returned (CPU, load, memory, disk) but omits units or format details. For a simple stats tool, this is mostly sufficient, but a bit more context on return structure would improve 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description appropriately does not mention parameters since none exist.

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 lists specific metrics (CPU percent, load average, memory, disk usage), which clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from get_system_info by focusing on performance stats rather than system configuration. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it's not 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_system_info or other sibling tools. It implies usage via the stat list but lacks explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative references.

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