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 of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns a string in JSON format, which is a useful detail about the output. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects (or lack thereof), required permissions, or error conditions. For a simple getter like this, the transparency 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 extremely concise, consisting of one main sentence and a Returns line. Every word contributes value, and the structure is clear with the Returns section. There is no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and a single output type, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns (JSON-formatted string). The presence of an output schema is supported by the return description, and no further context seems necessary.

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, and the input schema is empty. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to add anything about parameters.

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). The verb is specific ('get') and the resource is clear ('system environment information'). There is no ambiguity with the sibling tool 'interactive_feedback', which serves a distinctly different purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever system environment information is needed. Since there are no parameters or complex prerequisites, explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance is unnecessary. The context is clear, and no alternative tool for this function exists among siblings.

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