check_system_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a non-mutating read and the metric list clarifies what data is surfaced, but there is no explicit statement about safety, permissions, cost/rate limits, or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word (verb plus the three metric categories) 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 no-parameter read-only diagnostic tool this covers what is inspected, but with no output schema it says nothing about the structure or units of the returned metrics (e.g., utilization percentages vs bytes, one partition vs a list), which an agent would need to interpret results.

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 schema to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect') and enumerates the exact resources read: CPU load average, RAM utilization, and disk partition space. This clearly separates it from its siblings (tail_logs, inspect_systemd_services, inspect_systemd_timers), which target logs and services rather than host hardware metrics, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 use this tool versus the sibling inspection tools, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The diagnostic intent is only implied by the word 'Inspect' and the metric list.

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