getDashboardTopCpuUsage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that results are ranked 'top' devices, but does not disclose how many devices are returned, the ranking direction, or the sampling time window – meaningful gaps for a dashboard metric tool even with annotations present.

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 the resource and scope first, followed by the use case. No wasted wording, though it is brief enough that a few more specifics could have been added without bloat.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and full schema documentation, the description covers purpose adequately. However, with no output schema present, it does not describe the shape of the response (device list with CPU percentages, sort order, result count), which an agent would need to interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% and the siteId property already documents its pattern, default fallback to OMADA_SITE_ID, and the listSites discovery path. The description only echoes 'for a site', adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get the top devices by CPU usage') plus a scope ('for a site'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling getDashboardTopMemoryUsage. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative to use for memory metrics, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in text.

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?

'Useful for identifying overloaded devices' implies the operating context (capacity troubleshooting) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and names no alternative such as getDashboardOverview or getDashboardTopMemoryUsage. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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