System Info Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly by saying 'Show', but does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., connection errors) or whether it makes a network call. For a simple info tool this is acceptable, but it could add more behavioral detail.

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 two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and a concise usage rationale second. No wasted words, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what it does and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing; the output schema handles return-value documentation.

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 schema is trivially complete and there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter info because none is needed.

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 function: 'Show Grocy server version, PHP version, and SQLite version.' It names a specific verb ('Show') and a precise resource (version details), making it unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling tools that perform operations on data.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for verifying connectivity and checking compatibility.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion criteria, but given the tool's unique diagnostic role among siblings, the usage hint is adequate. A more explicit 'use when... not when...' would push it higher.

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