pier_get_system_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval, and the metrics list conveys scope. However, it does not disclose output format, units, sampling behavior, or any operational caveats, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the scope is communicated compactly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context by naming the measured resources. It stops short of specifying the response shape or any access prerequisites, which would make it fully complete for all use cases.

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 is an empty object, so there are no parameter meanings to document. The description provides all relevant context by naming the metric categories. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a precise verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('server-level metrics') and enumerates exactly what is covered: CPU, RAM, disk, and network usage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target apps or containers.

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 phrase 'server-level metrics' implicitly signals when to use this tool versus the app-level and container-level sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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