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. It does disclose the type of data returned (version, cook rate, realtime flag, method list) and implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only or whether it requires any specific permissions. For a system info tool, this is fairly transparent.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key elements: version, cook rate, realtime flag, and method list. No extra words, efficient and informative.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete for what it returns. However, it doesn't mention the format or structure of the 'full registered method list', but that might be minor for a system info tool.

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 schema is empty. The description adds essential meaning by listing what information is returned, compensating for the lack of parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, a high score is appropriate.

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 reports system-level information: version, cook rate, realtime flag, and the registered method list. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like system_ping (connectivity) and bridge_status (bridge state).

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 this is for retrieving system-wide details, and while it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context of siblings (e.g., system_ping for pinging) suggests when to choose this tool. No explicit alternatives are named, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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