get_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately carries the behavioral disclosure burden by explicitly stating 'Does not modify system state.' This covers the key safety concern for a read-only info tool. It could mention that no privileges are needed, but the non-modification statement is strong enough for this scope.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence enumerates the returned fields, the second provides usage guidance and a safety note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully captures what an agent needs to know: what it returns, when to use it, and that it is non-mutating. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to explain parameter semantics since there are none. It correctly focuses on the return content instead.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('basic system information') with an explicit list of included fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage and get_memory_usage by focusing on system-level identity and health rather than resource-specific metrics.

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 usage scenarios ('investigating general system identity, checking OS version, or assessing basic system health') that guide an agent on when to call it. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, the context is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the sibling set.

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