system_info

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

Discloses the default behavior ('No action (or action=info) returns the full snapshot') and explicitly labels preflight as 'read-only'. Without annotations, this provides useful behavioral detail, though it does not uniformly state that all actions are read-only.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, states the default behavior, and lists actions in a compact, scannable format. No word is wasted.

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 tool with one optional enum parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, all action variants, and the default snapshot behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema only lists an enum with no descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each action's meaning (e.g., 'usage (per-tool call statistics...)'). It also clarifies the optional nature and default behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 it provides 'RoBridge + Studio status' and enumerates specific actions (ping, connection, place_info, etc.) that return status information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle mutations or queries of specific game objects.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use each action (e.g., 'ping (latency)', 'preflight (read-only Studio diagnostics)'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. The read-only nature and action list make the intended usage evident.

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