dd_system_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Get' strongly implies a non-destructive read, and listing the returned fields compensates somewhat for the absent output schema. It does not disclose permission requirements, latency, or whether the data is cached/live, which for a diagnostic tool would be useful context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the payload attributes itemized immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 parameterless read tool the description is nearly sufficient — it names the resource and the exact attributes returned. The remaining gap is route selection: with get_system_health in the sibling set, the description should state how identity/version information differs from health/status information so the agent chooses correctly.

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 schema has zero properties, so there is nothing parameter-level for the description to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The field list describes outputs rather than inputs, which is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get Data Domain system information') and enumerates the returned attributes — model, version, serial number, uptime — so the agent knows exactly what this tool retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_system_health, which an agent could plausibly pick for the same intent.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related get_system_health or any other status tool. The implied usage (call it when you need static appliance identity/version data) is inferable from the field list, but nothing states exclusions, prerequisites, or when an alternative is preferred.

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