Get System Overview

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

Annotations already disclose the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about what the snapshot includes (real-time counters, agents, etc.), going beyond the structured annotations. It does not mention potential costs or rate limits, but for this tool the content disclosure is sufficient given the annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and content, and ends with actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content categories, and usage recommendation. The explicit list of what the snapshot includes compensates for the lack of an output schema, making the description functionally complete.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description of 'obj_type' (filter, auto-discovers if omitted). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 clearly states the tool provides a comprehensive snapshot of system status, listing specific content (agents, TPS/response time/heap/CPU counters, active service counts, recent alerts). The verb 'Get' and the resource are specific, and the starting-point positioning distinguishes it from the narrower sibling tools.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool as the starting point for any investigation, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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