宿主机硬件/运行时快照

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. '获取' implies a non-mutating read, and the enumerated data categories give a useful preview of returned content, but there is no statement about latency/cost, whether results are cached, or whether it requires any host-level access — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the covered fields, with no filler or repetition. It is dense but readable; a short clause on the disk-vs-storage_report boundary would have been worth the extra words.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description does the necessary work by enumerating what the snapshot contains, so an agent knows what it will get back. The remaining gap is structural detail — units, whether values are live or cached, and how this differs from storage_report.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the description's claim of an unfiltered whole-host snapshot.

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?

States a specific verb (获取) and resource (宿主机硬件/运行时快照), then enumerates the concrete fields covered: CPU architecture, OS, memory, disk, Node runtime version, MCP service info. An agent can tell this is a host-snapshot tool, though the description never distinguishes it from the sibling storage_report, which plausibly overlaps on the disk/storage portion.

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 tail clause '供 Agent 决策本地算力分配' implies a use scenario (call it before deciding local compute allocation), but it is framed as a purpose rather than an explicit when-to-use rule. There are no exclusions and no naming of alternatives such as storage_report when only disk figures are needed.

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