get_system

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It clearly identifies the data source (System.rxdata) and enumerates the data categories that will be returned, which partially discloses behavior. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it validates the file, or what happens if the file is missing. Since the name 'get_system' strongly implies a read operation and the description includes a file reference, the risk of misuse is low, but richer behavioral detail would be expected.

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 data') and then lists the key contents in parentheses. Every element adds value, and the parenthetical list is efficiently organized. No redundant or filler words are present.

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 no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the resource and enumerates the major data categories. A minor gap is the lack of format or volume of the returned data, but given the tool's simplicity and the clear sibling context, this is acceptable. It doesn't need to explain return values since no output schema exists, but it would be slightly more complete with a note that the response is the full System data structure.

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 confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds meaning by specifying what data is returned (party, elements, switches, variables, etc.), which is the relevant semantic content. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline 4 is appropriate, and the description adequately compensates by explaining the tool's scope.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('System data'), then elaborates with the exact file and the data categories it contains (party, elements, switches, variables, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target maps, items, actors, skills, or scripts.

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 as the go-to tool for retrieving high-level system configuration, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives. However, given that it is the only system-level read tool among siblings and its name/description are unambiguous, the appropriate context is implied. No explicit 'when not to use' is provided.

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