get_system_alerts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds value by disclosing that output is a prioritized list of critical/warning alerts and that it covers multiple metrics (CPU, RAM, swap, etc.), which is not implied by annotations alone.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and usage. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of the tool name, and it adds essential guidance without being verbose.

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 with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No additional details about return format or edge cases are necessary for effective tool selection.

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 baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter usage, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. It appropriately focuses on the tool's scope of metrics scanned.

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 scans all key system metrics and returns a prioritized list of critical/warning alerts. It uses specific verbs ('scans', 'returns') and differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage by acting as a general triage tool.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this first for general why is my machine slow? questions as a quick triage tool', which gives clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative specific metric tools, but the guidance is unambiguous enough.

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