system_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the types of information gathered and signals non-interactive, one-shot behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it may require elevated permissions (e.g., for CPU temp), or how it handles unavailable data.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and then concisely lists its contents. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description does enough by enumerating what the agent can expect in the result. It is sufficient for a simple health-check call, though it could be slightly richer by noting the status format or that services include game_server_status, a sibling.

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, so there is no parameter semantic burden on the description. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies: there is nothing the description must add about arguments, and the empty schema is not a gap.

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 identifies the tool as a one-shot homelab health check and enumerates the data it returns: hostname, uptime, load average, disk usage, CPU temp, and service statuses. It implies differentiation from the sibling tools by covering aggregate health rather than a single subsystem, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 phrase 'one-shot homelab health check' implies this is the tool to use for a quick overall snapshot, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus service_status, disk_usage, or game_server_status. It provides context but no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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