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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication/session requirements, or failure modes when host/port/profile are omitted. The presence of host, port, scheme, and profile parameters strongly implies a remote session is needed, but the description never mentions this.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the concrete content it returns. No padding, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with four connection parameters.

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-value details need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and a cluster of connection-related parameters, the description should say something about session/auth expectations; the enumerated fields partially compensate but leave a notable gap.

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%, so the schema already explains host, port, scheme, and profile; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 (获取) and resource (系统信息) and enumerates concrete returned fields (hostname, trim version, kernel version, uptime). An agent can tell it is a read of system-level identity/version data. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like system_details or system_hardware.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over system_details, system_hardware, system_volumes, or status_overview, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., whether login/session setup is required first). Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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