cpu_memory_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as taking a 'snapshot' (non-destructive), and indicates CRITICAL levels for OOM-imminent conditions. This provides good behavioral insight, though it does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free behavior.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each adding distinct value. It front-loads the core purpose ('CPU% + memory% + swap% snapshot') and then elaborates with additional components and HealthLevel semantics. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality and behavioral traits. However, it lacks details about the exact response structure or the HealthLevel range, which could be helpful for an agent. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a simple health 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter info (none needed), so this score is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as a health snapshot of CPU, memory, swap, OOM-kill count, and load averages with HealthLevel classifications. It distinguishes itself from sibling health tools by focusing specifically on CPU/memory/swap health, while 'health_overview' suggests a broader summary.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'health_overview' or 'disk_usage'. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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