get_system_health

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns a JSON string and details exactly which categories of data are included, including load averages, I/O counters, and uptime. It does not mention potential error conditions or latency, but for a zero-parameter read-only health snapshot this is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a scannable bullet list to detail the return contents. Every line adds useful information, and the example uptime format helps clarify the expected shape. No filler or redundancy exists.

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 no parameters and a rich output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does and what data it returns. The presence of an output schema means the agent can also inspect the exact return structure separately, and the description complements it well.

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, so the description need not explain parameter behavior. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than input semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a complete system health snapshot of the Linux VPS.' It enumerates CPU, RAM, Disk, Network, and Uptime, which clearly distinguishes this broad health tool from more targeted siblings like get_top_processes, analyze_disk_usage, or get_docker_stats.

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 purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use it: whenever a broad system health overview is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the 'complete system health snapshot' framing provides clear context without excluding edge cases.

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