system_info

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

The description marks the tool as [READ], indicating it is non-destructive. With no annotations, this simple indication is adequate but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or performance characteristics.

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 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is efficient.

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?

Given the single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks detail on the return structure or format. The listed fields (counts, driver, kernel, resources) are vague, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is returned.

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 description explains the 'target' parameter beyond the schema: 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' Since the schema provides no description (0% coverage), this added context is valuable and clarifies usage.

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 what the tool does: returns daemon info including container/image counts, storage driver, kernel, and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like system_version or system_df, which are more specific.

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 alternatives (e.g., system_version, system_df). The description does not specify contexts or exclusions.

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