system_info

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

The description implies a read-only operation (查看/view) with no side effects. Without annotations, it provides basic transparency but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or potential performance impacts. The behavior is simple enough that the description is minimally adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward information tool.

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?

The description covers the main domain areas but lacks context on output format, default behavior, and distinction from sibling tools. Given the simple parameter and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description lists the info domains (CPU, memory, etc.) which overlap with the enum values, but it does not explain how the 'type' parameter controls output (e.g., selecting a subset vs. all). The agent must infer parameter usage from the tool name and enum values alone.

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 views system CPU, memory, disk, load, and process information. It uses a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (system info). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_analysis or disk_analysis that offer more targeted views.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., memory_analysis, disk_analysis). The description does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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