Node resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: data is 'live' (a real-time snapshot rather than cached/aggregated) and 'whole-host' (host-wide rather than per-job), which helps scope interpretation. It stops short of describing refresh behavior, units, or what 'recent history' spans.

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?

One tight sentence with the core fact (live whole-host CPU/memory) front-loaded and the optional modifier trailing in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness leaves little room for the routing and return-shape context that is missing elsewhere.

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 output schema, the agent gets no indication of what metrics come back, their units, or the time window covered by `history`, and it is not obvious which node 'this node' refers to given there is no node identifier parameter. Annotations cover the safety dimension, but for a zero-arg-ish metrics tool the return shape remains under-specified.

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 0% for the single `history` boolean, so the description must carry the load and it partly does — 'optionally with the recent history' tells the agent the flag toggles inclusion of historical data. It does not say how far back the history goes, what granularity, or how the payload changes, leaving real ambiguity for a flag that likely alters response size substantially.

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 resource and scope: the current node's whole-host CPU/memory, live, optionally with history. That is far more informative than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like cron_get_job_resources, cron_get_cluster, or cron_get_fleet, so the agent must infer the node-vs-job-vs-cluster boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus cron_get_job_resources or cron_get_cluster, and no prerequisites or conditions given. The only usage hint is the parenthetical about optionally including history, which is parameter guidance rather than tool selection guidance.

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