cpu/load-average

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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, and the description adds meaning beyond them: the exact metric semantics (runnable plus uninterruptible tasks, not a percentage), how to interpret it against cpu/list, and the concrete return shapes for text and structured formats. That is real behavioral context, not restatement.

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?

Text is dense but front-loaded with the core definition first, then interpretation, then format details, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately supplies the return format (text example and JSON field names). Combined with the safety annotations and the interpretation guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and use it 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by naming the returned fields (`1_min`, `5_min`, `15_min`) and noting that yaml/table/wide yield the same JSON as json. Minor redundancy on the default-text point keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (1, 5 and 15 minute load averages from sysinfo(2)), and immediately clarifies the semantics of 'load' (runnable + uninterruptible tasks, not CPU percent). An agent can distinguish it from cpu/list and processes/top without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: compare load against logical CPU count from cpu/list, use processes/top for per-process CPU, and memory/usage for memory. Both when-to-use and named alternatives are given, leaving nothing to inference.

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