get_system_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what data is returned, but it does not mention whether any permissions are required, whether the data is a real-time snapshot, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is adequate for a read-only tool but adds no extra context beyond the basic function.

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 that immediately states the action ('Gets') and the list of metrics. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundant content. It achieves maximum clarity in minimal 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does. It lists all the metrics returned, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the format or granularity of the data, but this is not critical for a system stats snapshot tool.

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 is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and since the description does not need to explain any parameters, it fully satisfies the requirement. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist.

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 with a specific verb 'Gets' and enumerates the exact system metrics (CPU load, memory pressure, battery metrics, thermal level, hung processes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_battery_health and get_process_list, which target individual metrics, by presenting it as a comprehensive system stats snapshot.

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 implies usage through the list of metrics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over more specific siblings such as get_disk_usage or get_process_list. There is no mention of trade-offs or exclusions, so the usage context is left to the user's inference.

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