get_system_stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this tool is safe to invoke without side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming exactly what categories of statistics are returned (CPU, memory, disk, uptime), which goes beyond the bare read-only signal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and the data categories it returns. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler 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 zero-argument, read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It specifies the scope (host system) and the metric domains covered, while the output schema can handle the detailed return structure.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds value by indicating the kind of data returned, which partially compensates for the absence of any argument details.

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') and a precise resource ('host system statistics'), then enumerates the metric categories (CPU, memory, disk, uptime). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_service_stats, which targets service-level metrics rather than host-level ones.

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 phrase 'host system statistics' gives clear context that this tool is for host-level metrics, implicitly differentiating it from service-focused siblings like get_service_stats. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-parameter system stats tool the usage context is evident.

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