get_system_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor value by noting the vnstat network breakdown (today + month) and 'on demand' behavior, but it does not disclose output format or behavior if data is unavailable.

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 zero wasted words. The verb and resource come first, the content list follows, and the usage triggers are packed into the second sentence efficiently.

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?

With no parameters and annotations covering the non-destructive read-only nature, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly. It enumerates the main return content, though it stops short of describing the exact response structure or units, which would be more critical without an output schema.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 names a specific action ('Get current system stats on demand') and enumerates the exact contents: CPU usage, memory, vnstat network (today + month), top processes, and uptime. This clearly differentiates the aggregate snapshot from granular siblings like get_system_cpu, get_top_processes, or get_vnstat_data.

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?

The description provides explicit usage triggers: the user asks 'how's my system', 'give me stats', or 'show system status'. It does not mention when not to use this tool versus the many granular monitoring siblings, but the stated triggers give clear contextual guidance.

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