get_realtime_io

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate these. It adds valuable context about the sampling method (twice over an interval) and the output units, which aligns with the annotations and provides behavioral insight beyond them.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core function and output, and every sentence earns its place. It includes usage guidance without any fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), the description fully covers the return values (units for both disk and network), the measurement methodology, and the usage context. No output schema exists, so the detailed output description compensates adequately.

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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'interval', including a description. The tool description adds the nuance that sampling occurs 'twice over an interval', which enriches understanding of the parameter's behavior, so it goes beyond the schema baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Measures') and resource ('actual disk and network I/O throughput'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming get_disk_usage and get_network_usage, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Call this instead of get_disk_usage or get_network_usage when the user asks about current speed or throughput.' This clearly indicates the intended use case and excludes other scenarios.

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