get_system_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose that 'all' returns everything but is slow (a performance/weight trait), and recommends 'overview' for lightweight checks. This gives the agent useful behavioral context about response weight and speed tradeoffs, though it doesn't disclose error conditions or permission requirements.

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?

A single dense, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, lists covered areas efficiently, and closes with actionable usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy with the schema. The coverage list is long but earns its place given the tool spans 17 categories.

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?

Despite a complex tool covering 17 categories, the description adequately conveys the scope, distinguishes the overview shortcut, warns about the 'all' performance cost, and covers the Windows-specific case. With a 100% documented schema and 0 required params, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 the schema fully documents all 17 enum options with descriptions. The description adds the practical recommendation hierarchy (overview > all for speed), which slightly exceeds the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description adds limited additional meaning beyond the performance note.

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 'Get comprehensive system status for production server monitoring' with a specific verb+resource. It lists 15+ specific content areas (performance metrics, hardware specs, networking, processes, etc.) which thoroughly distinguishes it from siblings like read_config and read_log. Very specific and comprehensive purpose statement.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use 'overview' for a quick health snapshot, or specify a category for deep details.' It also flags 'all' as slow, telling the agent to prefer overview for quick checks. This is clear when-to-use guidance differentiated by category, and the sibling names (config/log tools) imply this is the operational-status tool.

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