system_info

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add value by enumerating the information categories returned, which partially compensates for the absent output schema. It says nothing about scope (local vs remote daemon), error behaviour, or how the target config is resolved.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and the returned fields in one line, followed by a short Args block for the only parameter. No padding or filler sentences; the '[READ]' tag is mildly redundant with the annotation but harmless.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and how the parameter resolves the target. Remaining gaps — daemon scope, pagination/volume limits, failure modes — are minor for this tool class.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only shows an unconstrained string-or-null 'target' with default null. The description compensates by explaining that target is a name drawn from config and that omitting it selects the default — the essential semantics for the single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Daemon info') and enumerates the content returned: container/image counts, storage driver, kernel, resources. That is enough for an agent to know what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like system_version, system_df, or overview, which an agent could also plausibly pick for host-level facts.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite siblings (system_df, system_version, overview) covering overlapping host/daemon information. The only routing hint is 'omit for the default', which is a parameter default, not usage guidance.

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