get_boot_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and mentions the only fatal condition (systemd-analyze missing or failing), which is valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 with no filler. The first sentence packs the core functionality and output details, while the second covers safety and use case. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the return content (phases, total time, target), the tool's source (systemd-analyze), the failure mode, and the intended use. Given that an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for this simple, zero-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds useful context about the tool's output rather than needing to explain parameters.

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 it returns the boot-time breakdown from systemd-analyze time, listing specific phases (firmware, loader, kernel, initrd, userspace), total time, and target. This concrete verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_boot_blame and get_boot_critical_chain.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use to quantify where boot time goes.' It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear and non-misleading.

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