get_system_info

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

The description discloses that it returns a JSON string of system information, but lacks detail on what environment data is included, whether there are any prerequisites, or potential side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it.

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 exceptionally concise: a single purpose line plus a return-type note. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters), the presence of an output schema, and a clear statement of the return type, the description is almost complete. It only lacks a bit more detail on what 'system environment information' entails, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 covers 100% of them (none). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description needs no parameter-specific details.

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 the tool's purpose: '獲取系統環境資訊' (get system environment information). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tool interactive_feedback, which is clearly different in function.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, but the purpose is self-evident and the only sibling tool (interactive_feedback) is unrelated in scope. Usage context is implied rather than stated, which is acceptable for a simple read-only tool.

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