get_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a live/real-time combined snapshot, not a persistent monitor or static report. It does not contradict annotations. A small gap remains in that the description doesn't specify response structure or whether the snapshot is instantaneous vs averaged, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the full metric list, and the second immediately provides usage and alternative routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 snapshot tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, lists contents, gives real-time use cases, and points to the correct alternative. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema contains no properties, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's list of output metrics is the closest equivalent and provides sufficient semantic context for a no-arg call.

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: 'Live system metrics snapshot' and enumerates the exact metrics included (CPU, RAM, GPU, disk I/O, etc.). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_system_info by warning against using it for static hardware specs, making sibling differentiation clear without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use for "how is my PC doing" or real-time status.' It also provides a clear exclusion and alternative: 'Do NOT use for static hardware specs — use get_system_info for that.' This fully addresses selection criteria versus alternatives.

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