get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return format (JSON string) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or requires any permissions. For a tool that retrieves system info, the lack of explicit safety traits is a significant omission.

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, using only two brief clauses to state the purpose and return type. It is front-loaded with the core function and provides minimal but necessary detail. No unnecessary words are included, and it adheres to the principle that every sentence should earn its place.

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 (zero parameters, no side effects likely), the description is adequate. It states what the tool does and the return format. However, it could be more complete by explicitly indicating that it is a safe, read-only operation, which would reassure an agent. Since this is not stated, it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and this description meets it without requiring further elaboration.

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's function: '獲取系統环境資訊' (get system environment information). The verb '獲取' (get) and resource '系統資訊' (system info) are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from the sibling 'interactive_feedback'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. The description only provides a basic statement of what it does, without any context, prerequisites, or alternatives. This is a clear gap in usage direction.

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