nbc_system

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses potentially destructive operations (undo, redo, purge) and code execution (execute_lisp) plus the ALLOW_RCE gate, which is important safety-relevant context. It does not detail consequences such as purge scope or undo limits, but the key risk signals are present.

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 very concise and front-loads the tool's identity as 'System', followed by a compact operation list. The cryptic '(ALLOW_RCE gate)' could be clearer, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable for an agent.

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?

This is a multi-operation tool with seven distinct behaviors, yet the description provides no operation-specific rules, parameter contracts, or usage conditions. An output schema exists, which helps with return values, but the input side is too underspecified for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description must explain the parameters. It partially does this by listing likely values for 'operation', but it gives no meaning for 'data' or 'include_screenshot', and does not map data payloads to specific operations. This leaves the agent guessing on how to structure calls.

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 names the resource ('System') and enumerates specific operations: status, undo, redo, purge, plot_pdf, execute_lisp, and get_variables. This makes the tool's scope reasonably clear and distinguishes it from sibling domain tools like nbc_drawing and nbc_wall. However, it lacks a main verb and explains none of the operations, so it is not a fully explicit purpose statement.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The list of operations implies system-level use, and the '(ALLOW_RCE gate)' hint suggests a permission condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The agent is left to infer eligibility and context.

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