get_system_infoRetrieve system environment information as JSON. Use it to check OS, runtime, and environment details for debugging or configuring feedback-driven development workflows.
獲取系統環境資訊
Returns: str: JSON 格式的系統資訊
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the return type (a JSON string) and says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether this is read-only.
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 definition is short and front-loads the purpose before a return-type note. Both parts are brief, though the 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given an output schema already exists.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly avoids doing so in depth. For a zero-parameter read tool it is minimally adequate, but it omits any behavioral context about the environment it inspects.
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, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter semantics.
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 verb and resource ('獲取系統環境資訊' = get system environment info), making the tool's function immediately clear. However, it offers no differentiation from its sibling interactive_feedback, though the two are functionally distinct.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.