bookshelf_get_system_status

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the list of returned fields but does not disclose other behavioral aspects (e.g., response format, rate limits, or auth requirements). This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 purpose ('Get system status') followed by a concise list of included fields. Every word earns its place 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 simple, parameterless status tool with readOnlyHint and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It names the key fields, making the tool's purpose and return content clear; the output schema fills in any further structural details.

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 the schema correctly reflects that with 100% schema description coverage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'system status', and enumerates the exact fields returned (app name, version, OS, build, runtime). This is specific and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'get_system_routes' or 'get_health'.

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 implies usage: if you need basic system information, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., 'get_health' or 'get_config_host') or provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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