Estado general de la Mac

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool aggregates six distinct data areas into a single response, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not mention potential performance costs or failure modes, but for a read-only snapshot this is sufficient.

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 only two sentences, with the action and content front-loaded and the use case provided immediately after. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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 fully explains what data the agent will receive (six areas of system information) and when to call it, with no parameters or output schema to complicate. It is complete for a simple, read-only aggregate 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 coverage is trivially 100%, so there are no parameter details to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description adequately clarifies what the call returns, compensating for the empty schema.

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 it provides a complete summary of the Mac in one call, explicitly listing system, battery, memory, CPU, disk, and top processes. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_battery or get_cpu, which each cover a single subsystem.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Úsalo para preguntas generales como "¿cómo está la compu?"' which effectively communicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of full sibling differentiation.

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