dump_system_settings

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that the tool 'dumps' settings and 'reveals' configuration and preferences, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential prerequisites (e.g., root access), side effects, or any warnings about the sensitivity of the data. This is a significant gap for a tool that accesses security settings.

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 front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. It adds essential information about what is revealed and then clearly lists parameters. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description is adequate for a simple dump tool, but it lacks important context such as whether special permissions are required, how to interpret the output (though an output schema exists), and how it compares to related tools. Given the sensitive nature of system settings, more operational context would improve completeness.

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 provides zero description coverage for the two parameters, but the description compensates by explaining that device_id is an optional serial number and output_file is a path to save results as JSON. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's raw parameter names and types.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to dump all system settings (secure, system, global). It also specifies the kind of information revealed (device configuration, security settings, user preferences), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_root_status or get_running_processes.

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 description provides clear context about what the tool does and what kind of information it reveals, implying its use for inspecting device configuration and security settings. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternative tools or any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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