arcane_get_system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and listing returned contents adds some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that no resources are modified or mention any potential performance implications.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose and output contents without extraneous words. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a simple, no-parameter system info tool, the description provides sufficient context about the return contents (version, uptime, resource counts). While an output schema is absent, the listed items give a clear expectation. It could mention the format or if any of these counts are nested, but this is not critical for selection.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed, and there are no parameter semantics for the description to enrich.

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 retrieves Arcane system information with specific contents (version, uptime, resource counts). This distinguishes it as a broad system overview, though it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives like arcane_get_version or arcane_get_docker_info.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools such as arcane_get_version, arcane_get_docker_info, or arcane_get_health. The description gives no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage independently.

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