get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists the information categories, which adds context. However, it does not disclose any prerequisites, error behavior, side effects (e.g., whether it boots the distro), or return format. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. It leads with the action and resource, then parenthetically lists the specific data points, making every word informative.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately conveys the purpose and output scope. The listed info categories hint at the return content. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means some details like return format or error handling are not covered, preventing a perfect score.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'distro' with its default behavior (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'for a distro' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic information. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter explanation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'WSL system info' with scope 'for a distro', and enumerates the exact data categories (OS, kernel, uptime, memory, disk, user). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_wsl_status, which likely focuses on WSL installation health rather than system details.

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 description states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. Usage context is implied by the 'Get' action and mention of 'distro', but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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