System Details

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 usefully discloses two traits beyond the schema: the operation is read-only ('只读') and is fault-tolerant per item ('单条失败不影响其余'). It omits auth/profile requirements, error behavior on total failure, and any rate limits.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the item list in a parenthetical. Every clause carries information; the enumeration is slightly long but functional.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all params are documented. Still, for a 5-param tool with zero annotations, the description should ideally note authentication/profile requirements and how it relates to sibling info tools; the read-only and partial-failure notes are the main value-add.

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 100% with all 5 params documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's item enumeration lightly reinforces the 'items' parameter (18 selectable entries) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('聚合查询系统只读信息') and enumerates the 18 covered items, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like system_info, system_hardware, status_overview, or system_power_plan, which the enumeration partially duplicates.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The 'aggregate' framing implies a one-shot multi-fact call, but with many overlapping system_* siblings this is left entirely to inference.

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