uprof_system_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the tool is safe, and the description adds context by naming the underlying CLI command and warning that 'in mock mode the fields are synthetic.' This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then a caveat. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool has zero parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description fully covers the necessary context: what data it provides, why to use it, and a note about mock mode. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings; the baseline of 4 applies. It could optionally mention what fields are returned, but that's covered by the output schema.

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 retrieves parsed system information from a specific command ('AMDuProfCLI info --system'), listing concrete data points (CPU model/family, core counts, OS details). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that focus on collection and reporting.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('to decide which collect configs the hardware supports before profiling'), providing clear context. It doesn't mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the guidance is direct and practical for a read-only info tool.

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