get_system_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does enumerate exactly what data the tool returns, and the 'Get' verb implicitly signals read-only behavior. However, it never explicitly states the operation is non-destructive or has no side effects, leaving that to inference.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The first delivers the tool's purpose and returned fields; the second delivers usage guidance. The content list is front-loaded ahead of the usage note, and every word earns its place.

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 simple 0-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and when to use it. The only minor gap is that 'paths' is vague (config vs. data vs. temp), and with no output schema the agent won't learn the exact response shape from elsewhere — but this is a low-complexity tool, so the gap is small.

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 and schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on return content rather than parameters, since there is nothing to document — it adds value by explaining what the agent will receive from the call.

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 ('Get') with an enumerated resource list: version, branch, runtime, install source, OS, and paths. This clearly signals a system-wide diagnostic tool distinct from sibling tools like get_health, get_queue_status, or get_disk_space, which target narrower subsystems.

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?

'Start here when diagnosing anything' provides clear and actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for deeper subsystem-specific diagnostics (e.g., get_health, get_disk_space), but the directive is unambiguous about its role as the first-stop diagnostic entry point.

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