sample_cpu_time_ratios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that sampling is of live CPU time, but says nothing about blocking behavior, cost, or what happens across the duration/interval window. Adequate added context, not rich.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clause and the rest is a tight exclusion list with no filler. The enumerated exclusions are somewhat listy but each one serves a real disambiguation purpose against siblings.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose plus sibling disambiguation for a two-parameter read-only tool. Only the absence of timing/behavioral notes for the sampling window keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry bounds, defaults and units, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, unit, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('sampling') and resource ('live CPU user/system/idle percentages') and flags the READ-ONLY character up front. The explicit exclusions (job lists, RR/SJF, context switches, scheduling simulation) distinguish it cleanly from the many simulate_* and monitor_* siblings.

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?

Provides an unusually strong set of negative guidelines ('Never use for...', 'not context-switch monitoring, process control, or CPU scheduling simulation'), which routes an agent away from the wrong siblings. It stops short of a positive 'use this when' clause, but the purpose sentence supplies the selecting condition.

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