Get System.json

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

The description 'Read' clearly indicates a non-destructive, read-only operation. It also discloses the optional key filtering behavior. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it could mention safety or lack of side effects explicitly.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior and optional filter. It does not describe the return format, but the tool's purpose is clear. For a read-only tool, it is nearly complete.

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 schema covers the parameter with description 'Optional top-level key to return (e.g. 'switches', 'variables', 'terms')'. The description repeats this, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 reads System.json and lists its contents (game title, terms, etc.). It also mentions the optional key parameter that allows returning only one top-level key, distinguishing it from other tools like get_project_info.

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 for reading system configuration, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude specific scenarios. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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