get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what data is reported, which is the core behavioral trait for a status query, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or that it does not alter state beyond reading.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Server/PC status:') and then packs the returned field list compactly. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 stateless zero-parameter query tool with a provided output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. The schema handles return-value structure, and the description enumerates the reported categories, leaving nothing missing for correct invocation.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments; instead, it properly explains what the tool's output means, which is the only relevant semantic information given no schema to compensate for.

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 implicit verb (retrieve/query) over a concrete resource (server/PC status) and enumerates the exact data fields returned: screen size, monitors, OCR availability, failsafe, and game-mode state. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like screenshot and ocr_screen, which capture images or extract text, and from get_held, which reports keyboard state.

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 listed fields (OCR availability, failsafe, game-mode) imply a pre-flight environment-status use case, so usage is plausibly inferred. However, the description never explicitly says when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor states any exclusions or prerequisites.

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