Get Node OS & System Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating exactly what the response contains (OS, platform, kernel arch/version, disk size in bytes) in the absence of an output schema. It does not discuss cost, latency, or failure modes for an invalid nodeId, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero padding: the verb leads, the returned fields follow, and the scoping qualifier closes it. Every clause contributes information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it discloses the payload fields an agent needs to decide relevance. The only gap is the absence of any guidance on nodeId resolution failure or default behavior, which is minor here since the schema handles the default.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single nodeId parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, including the 'local' vs numeric-string ID convention and the pointer to list_nodes. The description only echoes this via 'on the selected node', adding no format or resolution detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the exact resources returned: operating system, platform, kernel architecture/version, and total disk size in bytes. An agent can tell this is an OS/platform introspection tool, clearly distinct from siblings like list_nodes or get_dashboard_info. It stops short of explicitly naming what it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'on the selected node' signals a per-node lookup, and the parameter default of 'local' hints at the common case. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over, say, get_dashboard_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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