show_cocpu

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'read-only', which signals non-mutating behavior, but it does not describe what data is returned, the format, or any side effects. A status tool typically returns usage metrics, but the description leaves this implicit rather than explicit.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase that front-loads the key information ('co-processor usage') and adds a behavioral modifier ('read-only'). There is no wasted text, and the structure is clear, though it is almost too minimal to be considered well-structured rather than merely terse.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining what the tool returns or the nature of the usage data. It fails to do so, offering no information about units, interpretation, or output format. An agent cannot predict what the tool will produce beyond the vague label 'usage'.

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, and the schema fully covers this (100% coverage). The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters since there is nothing to document. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 states the specific resource ('co-processor usage') and explicitly notes it is read-only. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like show_cpu or show_memory by naming a unique subsystem, making it easy to identify the tool's purpose. However, it does not elaborate on what 'usage' entails (e.g., percentage, rate), so it is not maximally specific.

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 about when to use this tool versus similar status tools such as show_cpu, show_memory, or show_statistic. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions that would select this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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