Get TrueNAS System Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the fields returned, which is useful but not rich behavioral context. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific data fields. Every part is informative and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only system info tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers all key data points and relies on the schema for response_format details. It could mention error behavior, but that is beyond the expected scope for a simple getter.

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?

There is one parameter (response_format) with 100% schema coverage, including an enum and descriptions for 'markdown' and 'json'. The description does not mention the parameter or add any semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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' and a clear resource 'system information from TrueNAS', and enumerates the exact data fields returned (product version, hostname, uptime, CPU, memory, load, boot time, timezone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific subsystems like pools or datasets.

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 provides clear context by listing the system-wide metrics covered, implicitly indicating that this tool is for holistic system info rather than component-specific lists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the field list makes the intended usage obvious.

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