get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('obtener'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires special permissions, what format the information returns in, whether it's cached or real-time data, or any rate limits. For a system information tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient Spanish sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools that provide similar system information, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'general' system information includes, how it differs from specific sibling tools, or what format the output takes. For a system information tool in this context, more detail is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools by not attempting to describe nonexistent 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 'Obtener información general del sistema operativo' clearly states the verb ('obtener' - get) and resource ('información general del sistema operativo' - general operating system information). It distinguishes from siblings like get_cpu_info, get_memory_info, and get_disk_info by specifying 'general' system information rather than specific components. However, it's not perfectly specific about what 'general' encompasses.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_cpu_info, get_memory_info, and get_disk_info that provide specific system information, there's no indication whether this tool aggregates those or provides different information, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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