get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the return type (JSON string), which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are required, or what the response contains beyond a generic 'system information'. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clear 'Returns:' specification. There is no redundancy or unnecessary prose, and the information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter system information tool, the description is complete. It clearly states the output format (JSON), which is especially helpful given that an output schema exists (though not shown). The tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema mean the description does not need to enumerate return fields or error conditions.

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 the description need not explain parameter semantics. The input schema is empty, and per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter information.

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 the tool's function: '獲取系統環境資訊' (Get system environment information). It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (system info), and it is clearly distinct from the sibling tool 'interactive_feedback', which is unrelated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since a sibling tool exists but is not referenced, the agent has no comparative context.

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