System resource snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that sampling occurs over a window (implied by 'Sample') and that output includes top processes and governor state, but it does not describe cost, latency, or sampling behavior beyond that.

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 that names the action and the payload with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the number of undocumented parameters.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains device targeting (deviceId/deviceName), the sampling window, or the top-count limit, and provides no usage context against overlapping siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only loosely implies 'top' (count of processes) and 'sampleMs' via the word 'Sample'; deviceId and deviceName receive no mention at all, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 (Sample) and resource (system CPU/memory) and names what is returned (top memory-consuming processes, governor state). It is clear on its own but never names or contrasts with close siblings such as system_info, get_usage_stats, or process_resource_snapshot, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (system_info, get_usage_stats, process_resource_snapshot, resource_governor_status). The agent gets a description of the operation but no routing signal.

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