get_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is retrieved but doesn't cover aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or response format. For a system info tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specific information components. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does without any wasted text or redundancy.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what information is retrieved. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format, potential errors, or operational constraints, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps for agent usage.

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, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on what information is retrieved, which adds value beyond the empty 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'FluidNC system information', listing specific components like firmware version, CPU, memory, WiFi, and SD card status. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on system-level data rather than configuration, macros, or machine control, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_machine_settings or get_machine_status.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to sibling tools like get_machine_settings or get_machine_status, leaving the agent to infer usage context based on the tool name alone.

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