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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait the annotations cannot convey: secret-looking values in the returned environment are masked. It does not discuss response size, truncation, or failure modes, so it is a real but partial add-on.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, sibling routing second, output-safety caveat last. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one thing the description never mentions is that every call requires a device id and operates on a remote device, relying entirely on the schema for that context; with 100% schema coverage this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so both parameters (device and include_env) are already documented in the schema, including device's dependency on list_devices. The description only echoes that env vars are optional and sanitized, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: PATH, shell, Node/runtime paths, architecture, and optionally sanitized environment variables. It also names the two nearest siblings and what they cover instead, so an agent can separate this from get_system_info and get_runtime_info. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement (it leads with a 'use this when' condition rather than 'Returns the runtime environment'), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives explicit selection criteria and names both alternatives with their distinct domains: get_system_info for host health (CPU/memory/disk/uptime) and get_runtime_info for ReMCP policy, roots and limits. Nothing about choosing between these three tools is left to inference.

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