Linux Host Stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Получение' and the word 'statistics' imply a non-mutating read and the metric list communicates scope, but nothing is said about freshness, required privileges, or whether commands are executed on the host. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and object, followed by the metric categories. No wasted words or repeated title content.

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 host-stats snapshot the description is practically usable, and the presence of an output schema can cover return details. However, missing usage guidance relative to siblings and silent optional parameters keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 schema exposes a single optional, nullable 'params' object with no documented keys and 0% description coverage. The description adds no parameter information; an agent can safely make a no-argument call, but any accepted options are entirely unknown.

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 clear retrieval verb and names the resource with concrete metric categories: CPU, память, диск, загрузка. It is apparent this is a host-level stats tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with linux_disk/linux_memory or other linux_* 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like linux_disk, linux_memory, linux_processes, and service-specific stat tools nearby, the agent must infer selection purely from the name and metric list.

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