Get sys copyright

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (`readOnlyHint: true`, `idempotentHint: true`, `destructiveHint: false`, `openWorldHint: true`). The description adds that the operation reads the firmware copyright notice, but it does not add behavioral context such as device requirements, caching, or response characteristics.

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 compact sentence with the endpoint and resource front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple, no-parameter read operation with rich annotations, the description identifies the endpoint and the returned content. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the return type or format, though 'copyright notice' strongly implies a text value.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter expectations.

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 states a specific endpoint (`/sys/copyright`) and identifies the resource as the firmware copyright notice. It is clear enough to distinguish this from other sys getters by content, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent would call this when it needs the copyright notice. The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with adjacent tools like `hdhomerun_get_sys_version` or `hdhomerun_get_sys_model`.

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