monitor_get_resource_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only; safe to retry" merely restates structured data. No additional behavior is disclosed (e.g., cost of sampling, whether values are instantaneous vs averaged, host scope).

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 opening is a noun fragment rather than a front-loaded verb phrase, and the full '## Return Format' JSON block plus an empty '## Examples' line consume most of the text while duplicating the declared output schema. The content is short in absolute terms but poorly allocated.

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 an output schema present, the return-format section is redundant, and given a crowded sibling set the definition is missing the one thing that matters: scope relative to the per-resource monitor tools. It is callable but under-specified for correct tool selection.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed via the empty-call example, and there is nothing left to disambiguate.

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 fragment "CPU, memory, root disk usage, and boot time" identifies the resources read but supplies no verb or object noun ('usage' is only implied by the tool name). It also fails to distinguish itself from obvious siblings like monitor_get_cpu_info, monitor_get_memory_info, monitor_get_disk_usage, and monitor_get_performance_metrics, so an agent cannot tell whether this is an aggregate or a duplicate.

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 aggregate monitor versus the per-resource siblings (cpu/memory/disk/performance), which is the primary ambiguity here. The only conditional-looking line is the idempotency note, which is not usage guidance.

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