get_system_info_code

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state safety, potential cost, or whether it executes external commands. It adds useful detail about the included data categories but misses important behavioral context for a system information tool.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the purpose and enumerates key contents. It is appropriately sized and wastes no 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns. It does not discuss limitations (e.g., operating system specifics or command execution details), but for its low complexity, it is reasonably 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 tool has 0 parameters, which earns a baseline of 4. The description further clarifies what the returned information will cover (OS, CPU, memory, disk usage), providing useful semantic context 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('system information'), enumerating OS, CPU, memory, and disk usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_stats or list_processes_code, which target different data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it is appropriate for system-level diagnostics or that other tools like list_processes_code are better for process-specific details. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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