sys_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose "Read-only" and clarifies scope for disk (free space per mount) and network (interfaces), but says nothing about output truncation despite max_bytes, nor about whether env output can expose sensitive values.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the resource, then enumerates modes compactly, closing with the safety trait. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing what each action returns (free space per mount, interfaces, env variables) is the right move and it is done adequately. Minor gaps: no truncation behavior for max_bytes and the omitted "all" mode.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description glosses the enum values (memory, disk, network, env) with short parentheticals, which adds marginal meaning, but filter/show_values/max_bytes semantics live entirely in the schema and the "all" action is never mentioned.

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 the resource (machine facts) and enumerates the specific fact categories it returns, so an agent knows exactly what it will get. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as proc or shell_info, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

"overview (default)" implies the common usage path and "Read-only" frames the operation, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when a sibling like proc would be preferable.

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