get_system

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects', which clearly discloses the safety profile. It also describes what the response includes (summaries of member threat models), adding valuable behavioral context beyond the bare operation.

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 two sentences plus a follow-up paragraph, all front-loaded with the core action. It adds relevant context about the system concept and related tools without 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, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, the system concept, related tools, and the read-only safety profile. It even hints at the return content. The only notable omission is guidance on the server_version parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with system_id described but server_version undocumented. The description adds meaning to system_id by explaining the 'system' concept, but it fails to mention server_version at all. This leaves the required server_version parameter ambiguous, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 gets a system container by ID, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'system container'. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying it includes member threat model summaries, and clarifies what a system is (a grouping for portfolio-level reporting).

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool, including how to discover system IDs via list_systems and how to modify via add_model_to_system. It implies the tool is for retrieval scenarios, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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