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 burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only (gopsutil host.Info plus sysfs)') and the failure condition ('Fails only if host info is unavailable'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond schema and annotations, though it could detail error output or permissions.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the functional result list, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned, the read-only safety profile, the failure condition, and the intended use case. It names the alternative for health verdicts, making the context complete.

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, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema confirms no inputs are required.

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 returns host info with a specific list of fields (hostname, OS, kernel, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as a single-machine identity summary, contrasting with get_system_health_check.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for a single-machine identity summary; for a health verdict use get_system_health_check.' This names an alternative and specifies the intended context, satisfying the when-to-use vs alternatives criterion.

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