show_cpu

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states 'read-only', which is useful, but gives no additional detail about the nature of the output (e.g., snapshot vs. average), any prerequisites, or limitations. This is minimal coverage for a tool that could have varying semantics.

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 and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is a single short phrase that directly states the purpose. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is arguably sufficient if it uniquely identifies the tool, but the large sibling set (show_cocpu, show_cputemp, show_memory) makes it unclear what distinguishes this tool. No output schema is provided, and the description gives no hints about return format or usage context, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 resource (CPU usage) and implies a read-only action, which is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like show_cocpu (likely CPU usage per core or similar) or show_cputemp (temperature). It lacks specificity about what kind of CPU usage is shown, making it somewhat ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many CPU-related siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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