winops_process_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds limited behavioral context: it specifies 'system-wide' scope and gives a return format example, which is helpful but does not go beyond annotations significantly. It does not contradict annotations, so no issue.

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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence. However, the '## Examples' section with 'resources()' is a minimal and somewhat confusing code-like snippet that adds little value. It is not verbose, but the example could be more illustrative (e.g., showing actual output values). Overall, it is reasonably structured and front-loaded.

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-only, no-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is measured (CPU and memory), provides a return format JSON example, and is supported by rich annotations. It lacks details like units or sampling specifics, but these are not critical for a snapshot tool. The example is superficial but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist. Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds no parameter-specific info, but that is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Snapshot system-wide CPU and memory utilisation.' It specifies a concrete verb ('snapshot') and resource ('CPU and memory') at the system level, effectively distinguishing it from process-specific siblings like process_list_card or winops_perf_process.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for obtaining a resource snapshot but offers no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like winops_perf_system or system_health_card. The provided return format and example give some context but no guidance on when to prefer this over others.

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