system_info

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful extra context by stating that no shell is invoked, which is a useful behavioral guarantee. It does not discuss response format, but for a no-parameter read-only info tool this is a minor omission.

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 front-loads the action and lists all relevant data categories without extraneous wording. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 no input complexity, the description fully covers what the tool does, what data it returns conceptually, and a key safety/behavioral characteristic. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: operating-system, CPU, memory, uptime, Node.js, and host identity information. It also distinguishes itself from shell-based tools by explicitly stating it works without invoking a shell, which separates it from siblings like shell_command.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to obtain system-level identity and resource information without shell execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives like environment_info or machine_status, but the phrase 'without invoking a shell' implies a safe, read-only alternative to shell-based commands.

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