cpu_percent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a percentage and requires no parameters, which is transparent about the operation's simplicity. However, it does not disclose details like sampling interval, whether the value is instantaneous or averaged, or potential side effects (though likely none).

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes the essential fact that no parameters are required, with zero 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 zero-parameter, read-only query tool, the description is largely complete. It states what it returns and that no parameters are needed. Minor gaps include not specifying the return format (e.g., integer vs float, range 0-100) or whether the value is a snapshot or average, but these are not critical for a simple tool.

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 is empty with 100% coverage. The description explicitly states 'No parameters are required,' which adds clarity beyond the empty schema by confirming the agent needs to supply nothing. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 returns the current CPU load percentage on the connected Android device, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('CPU load percentage'). It is distinct from siblings like cpu_count, which likely returns the number of CPU cores, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 implies usage context: it is a simple read-only query for CPU load on an Android device, with no parameters required. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cpu_count or get_properties, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as device connection.

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