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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful scope context by specifying that this is the local, per-computer runtime view and by separating it from system facts and account-level configuration.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the use case and returned information, and the second routes the agent away from sibling tools. There is no padding.

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?

The tool has a clear one-parameter schema, rich annotations, an output schema, and a description that covers purpose, scope, and alternatives. Nothing material is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 the single device parameter is fully documented in the schema as the ReMCP device id returned by list_devices. The description implies a single-device scope but adds no additional syntax or selection detail beyond the schema.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: local ReMCP runtime version, guardrails, allowed roots, and configured limits for one computer. It also names and distinguishes the two most relevant sibling tools, get_system_info and get_configuration.

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 when-to-use guidance and clear alternatives: use get_system_info for host OS/CPU/memory/disk facts, and get_configuration for deployment/account-level ReMCP server configuration. This leaves little ambiguity about tool selection.

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