Системная информация

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval of telemetry by naming informational fields, but it does not explicitly disclose that no side effects occur, nor does it describe output format, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 concise sentence that places the key examples up front. The phrase 'и т.п.' is somewhat low-information, but overall there is no unnecessary repetition or verbose phrasing.

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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent can infer that calling it yields system-level telemetry. Still, because there is no output schema and the description relies on vague examples, the exact contents and structure of the returned system info remain incomplete.

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 accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter details are needed.

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 names the resource as system information and gives concrete content examples: uptime, load, memory. However, it lacks an explicit verb and the trailing 'etc.' leaves the exact scope vague, and it doesn't distinguish this from nearby get-like siblings such as get_version or get_wan_status.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_version or get_wan_status. The description only enumerates information categories and provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision heuristics.

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