Get System Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it makes clear this is a passive aggregate read that touches CPU, memory, disk, and session state. However, it says nothing about cost/latency of gathering all these metrics, permission requirements for user or disk data, or freshness of the snapshot. Because an output schema exists, the return format itself need not be explained.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the summary concept and followed by a compact enumeration of the exact data points. No filler, no restatement of the title, and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 read with a full output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it and what it will contain. The only gap is the absence of any steering toward or away from the sibling-specific tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no arguments are needed to select scope.

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 a specific resource ('Overall system snapshot') and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: OS/distro, kernel, uptime, CPU, memory, swap, root disk, and users. That is far more informative than a tautology, but it never names or contrasts with the granular siblings (get_hardware_info, get_cpu_usage, get_disk_usage, get_memory_info) that return pieces of this same data.

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 phrase 'Overall system snapshot' implicitly signals this is the broad, one-shot alternative to the granular per-subsystem tools, but the description never states when to prefer it over them or when a targeted tool would be better. Usage is left to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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