system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about response formats (markdown/json) and local-vs-remote host behavior, but does not disclose error handling or detailed output structure beyond listing fields. 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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the Hungarian language and the somewhat redundant Args section prevent a perfect score.

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 read-only information tool, the description covers the returned fields and response formats, and the annotations cover safety and idempotence. The indicated presence of an output schema covers return structure, so the lack of detailed error-case discussion is acceptable.

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 description's Args section merely repeats parameter names with minimal qualifiers ('host (opcionalis), response_format'), adding no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema itself provides richer descriptions for both host and response_format, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema description coverage signal.

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 it provides static system information and enumerates exact fields (OS, kernel, hostname, CPU model, cores, total RAM, uptime). This distinguishes it from dynamic sibling tools like cpu_usage or memory_usage, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 for static machine info, contrasting with dynamic siblings, and the schema hints at the host_add prerequisite for remote hosts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use system_info over system_status, cpu_usage, etc. The usage guidance is mostly implicit rather than explicit.

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