get_resource_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only snapshot via 'Current' but says nothing about permissions, whether the call is expensive, or whether values are instantaneous vs averaged. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the metric list is front-loaded. It is a fragment without an explicit verb, which costs a little clarity but wastes no space.

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 simple read tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is roughly sufficient to invoke correctly. It is still ambiguous about what 'session usage' means relative to the sibling list_sessions, and gives no sense of the returned shape.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (vdom) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the default and meaning. The description adds no additional detail about scoping behavior, so the baseline 3 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 names the resource metrics it returns (CPU, memory, disk, session usage) with a clear point-in-time scope ('Current'), which is more specific than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_system_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_system_status or get_policy_stats, and no indication of what to do with the result. The agent must infer the tool's place in the toolset entirely on its own.

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