get_cpu_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the safety burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds useful details about the return content (per-core usage, top processes) and host connection via SSH_HOSTS config. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or disclose any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of returns and an Args section. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy beyond a minor repetition of 'returns' in the Returns header.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, returns, and the host parameter. The existing output schema likely documents the return structure in detail. The main gap is the absence of usage exclusions or error-handling information, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides only a title and default for host_name with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that host_name is a 'Named host from SSH_HOSTS config' and that it 'uses default host if omitted,' giving the agent an understanding of how to populate the parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed CPU usage and statistics.' It further enumerates concrete outputs (current CPU load, per-core usage, top CPU-consuming processes), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_memory_info or get_disk_info.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_high_load or get_system_overview. The only context is the host parameter, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings.

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