Dpanel System Usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but for a zero-argument host-metrics read the burden is small. It conveys that this is a read of host resources, yet it never states that the call has no side effects, is non-destructive, or what freshness/scope of the metrics (live snapshot vs. history) the caller should expect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource scope is stated immediately and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers what the call is. However, in a namespace with dpanel_system_info and dpanel_system_stat_list, it leaves the boundary between these tools unresolved, which is the main completeness gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical listing of CPU/memory/disk/panel adds some framing about which metrics are covered.

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 a specific verb+resource: reading the resource usage (CPU/memory/disk/panel usage) of the host where DPanel runs. This clearly separates it from a plain 'info' call at a conceptual level, but it does not name or contrast with the near-identical siblings dpanel_system_info and dpanel_system_stat_list.

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 call this tool versus dpanel_system_info or dpanel_system_stat_list, which sit in the same namespace and are easily confused. Usage is only implied by the noun 'usage'.

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