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 full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond an implicit read ('獲取'). It says nothing about auth requirements, cost, caching, or latency. The output schema covers what is returned, so that omission is excusable, but the rest is a gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than padded, so it earns credit for economy while leaving room to say more.

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 tool with an output schema, the minimal description is arguably adequate to invoke it correctly — the agent knows it returns system environment info. However, with no annotations and no indication of scope or read semantics, it is only just viable.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already establishes.

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 '獲取系統環境資訊' (get system environment information) is essentially a translation of the tool name and title, adding no specificity about what environment aspects are returned (OS, version, memory, runtime). It uses a verb+resource but conveys no more than the name already does, placing it in tautology territory.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tool interactive_feedback as an alternative. The agent gets no context for deciding whether this tool is relevant to its task.

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