System Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds value by listing the kind of content returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format, pagination, or rate limits. Given the read-only nature, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Get Homey system information') and then lists relevant details. Every word adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It names key information categories, which gives a clear picture of the returned data. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail on the exact structure (e.g., whether it returns a flat object or nested fields) would improve completeness, but the description still provides a solid baseline.

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, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is effectively 100%. There is no parameter meaning to add beyond what already exists, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Homey system information' and lists specific data categories (software version, hostname, Wi-Fi network, hardware details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_memory_info and get_storage_info by its broad system-level scope while being specific about the resource.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need general system information. The description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_memory_info or get_storage_info, so it provides only implied guidance rather than explicit exclusions.

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