vsz_get_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention any required permissions, or describe side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but the description lacks any safety-related context.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences plus an Args section. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameter, with no wasted words.

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 is simple with one parameter, and the output schema covers return values. However, the description lacks any guidance on usage context or safety semantics, which is notable given the absence of annotations. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 no description for the host parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining it as 'vSZ controller IP or hostname'. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema definition.

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 gets vSZ controller system information and specifies the fields (version, model, uptime), making it distinguishable from siblings like vsz_get_system_summary and vsz_get_system_inventory. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need system-level details like version, model, and uptime, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide exclusions. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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