nido_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It hints that some actions may not be read-only by recommending read-only resources, but it does not identify which actions mutate system state, require permissions, are destructive, or have irreversible effects such as uninstall or update.

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 short and front-loads the system-wide scope. The action list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but it remains concise and does not bury the main purpose.

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 an 11-action system tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain action-specific behavior, required parameters per action, side effects, safety constraints, or expected results beyond a bare list of action names.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only repeats the action names already present in the enum and adds no meaning for key, value, shell, force, or blueprint_name.

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 identifies a system-wide Nido operation dispatcher and distinguishes it from per-VM work, which helps separate it from nido_vm. However, "Access system-wide operations" is a broad category rather than a specific verb+resource, and the long action list only names commands without explaining what they do.

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 only guidance is "Use read-only resources when possible," which is vague and does not name alternatives or specify when to use this tool versus sibling resources. It also gives no warning about when destructive actions such as update, uninstall, or config_set are appropriate.

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