system_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the '[READ]' tag in the description is consistent with it. The description adds that this is a summary view (not a deep inspection), but says nothing about latency, auth requirements, or failure modes when a target is unreachable.

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?

One front-loaded line naming the resource and its contents, followed by a compact Args block. No filler or restated boilerplate; slightly more could be said about the sibling relationship within the same budget.

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?

A single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and readOnlyHint supplied; the description covers the return fields and the target semantics, so an agent has what it needs. Only the routing versus `overview` is left unstated.

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 0% — the schema only says 'Target' with a null default. The description compensates by explaining it is a 'TrueNAS target name from config' and that omitting it uses the default, which is exactly the missing semantic. It is the sole source of meaning for the 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 resource (TrueNAS system info) and enumerates what it returns (version, hostname, memory, cores, uptime), which tells an agent exactly what to expect. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling `overview`, which likely overlaps, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this versus `overview` or the various `pool_*`/`dataset_*` siblings. The only guidance offered is about the target argument, which is parameter-level rather than usage-level.

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