monitor_get_system_status

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

The readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false annotations already define the safety profile, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the returned sections and a concrete failure-mode recovery path for psutil AccessDenied. It does not state cost/latency or whether include_processes materially slows the call, which is the main remaining gap.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and the recovery note is genuinely useful, but the verbatim Return Format block largely duplicates the output schema and consumes a lot of space. The examples are helpful for parameter usage, though one more line on defaults would have earned that space better.

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 no-required-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this is close to complete: it explains what is collected, what the response looks like, and how to recover from permission errors. The missing piece is positioning against the granular monitor_get_* siblings, which matters given a 24-tool namespace.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partially does: it mentions optional disk, network and top processes, and the example shows include_processes and max_processes=20. include_disk is never named directly, defaults are not restated, and the meaning/upper bounds of max_processes (what counts as a 'top' process) is never explained.

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 opening sentence names a concrete resource set (OS, CPU count, load, memory, disk/network, top processes) and frames the tool as a single-file 'snapshot', which implicitly separates it from the single-metric siblings monitor_get_cpu_info, monitor_get_memory_info and monitor_get_disk_usage. It never states that distinction explicitly, so the agent must infer it from the aggregate field list.

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 call this aggregate snapshot versus the many granular monitor_get_* siblings, and no prerequisite notes. The only conditional guidance is a recovery hint (AccessDenied → retry with fewer options or elevate permissions), which addresses failure handling, not tool selection.

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