System info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is a useful behavioral cue. However, it doesn't disclose output format, potential delays, or whether elevated privileges are required, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and uses a compact enumeration of return categories. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates exactly what categories are reported. It omits the output format, but that's a minor gap given there is no output schema and the categories are self-explanatory.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameters or adding schema-level details.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Report') and clearly names the resource (this machine) and the scope (OS, CPU, RAM breakdown, disk usage per drive). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage apps, folders, or Chrome.

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 establishes a clear context: use this tool when you need OS/hardware status of the local machine. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list contains no other system-info tool, so the intended usage is unambiguous.

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