CPU information

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description 'Get detailed information' is consistent but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what 'detailed' means, rate limits, or side effects). Given annotations are present, the bar is lower, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence, but it is too minimal. It omits crucial details like the host parameter, making it less helpful. It earns a 3 for being concise without being verbose.

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 description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes. It does not. Additionally, it fails to contextualize the host parameter. The tool is simple, but the description still lacks completeness.

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% (the required 'host' parameter has no description). The description fails to explain the host parameter's purpose or format, leaving the agent to guess its meaning. For low coverage, the description must compensate, which it does not.

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 'Get detailed information about system CPUs' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (system CPUs), adequately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_disk_info or get_processes. However, it could be more precise by mentioning the required host parameter.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_disk_info, get_service_status). An agent would need to infer usage purely from the name and context, leaving ambiguity.

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