Get Unraid live metrics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the 'current' snapshot framing and the list of metric types, which is useful but does not disclose response structure, units, or edge cases such as missing temperature sensors. With strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Get current') and then enumerates the metric families. It contains no fluff or redundant wording.

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 tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the definition is mostly sufficient, but the lack of an output schema makes the missing return-format information more meaningful. It also does not note how this tool differs from the many query_metrics and next_system_metrics siblings, so an agent has enough to call it but not enough to confidently choose it over alternatives.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description's metric list adds useful context about the expected return content.

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 specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: current CPU, memory, network, swap, and temperature metrics from Unraid. It is easy to understand what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly scoped siblings like unraid_v4371_query_metrics or the unraid_v4371_next_system_metrics_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 alternatives. The description simply restates the operation, and the sibling list contains several closely related metric tools (unraid_v4371_query_metrics, unraid_v4371_next_system_metrics_cpu, etc.) with no exclusions or selection criteria provided.

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