info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description merely restates 'read-only' and adds no new behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or what exactly is returned.

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 wasted words. It states the verb, the resource, and the read-only nature efficiently.

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?

While the tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects), the description is too vague to be complete. It does not explain what 'device/system info' includes, how the 'profile' parameter affects the result, or what the return format is, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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 one optional parameter 'profile' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the meaning of 'profile' entirely to the schema's minimal string/null type.

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 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'device / system info', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like healthcheck, logs, or appliance_status, which also return information.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'read-only', which implies safe usage, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools.

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