process_get_loadavg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation with no side effects, which is the main behavioral trait. Still, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state or describe potential platform limitations or error conditions.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states what the tool returns, with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant details. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description fully specifies the output: load averages at three intervals plus core counts. There is no output schema, but the description fills that gap adequately. Nothing else is needed to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter information missing. The description appropriately focuses on the output instead 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource (CPU load averages for 1, 5, and 15 minutes), and adds core counts as a second output. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_get_priority or sensors_get_cpu_freqs.

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 when to use the tool: whenever load averages or CPU core counts are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as sensors_get_cpu_freqs for frequency data, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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