opnsense_get_system_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, notably that 'Sections whose endpoint is unavailable on this release are omitted' and the detailed return schema with optional (temperature, disk) sections. This is useful for setting expectations about output variability, which annotations do not cover.

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 well-structured and efficiently organized: one-sentence purpose, a 'Start here' usage note, an explicit exclusion, a compact Args list, a structured Returns block, and practical Examples. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition. The length is justified by the amount of useful information conveyed.

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 read-only status tool with a rich output schema, the description covers every relevant aspect: what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it (with alternatives), parameter defaults, the return format, and the edge case of omitted sections on unsupported releases. The agent has everything it needs to select and invoke this tool correctly in the appropriate context.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters (defaults, types, and even guidance on when to choose 'json' vs 'markdown'). The description's Args section repeats this information but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema offers. Since the schema coverage is effectively high from the schema's own descriptions, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 begins with 'Get a health overview of the OPNsense firewall' and enumerates exactly what is covered: version, uptime, load, memory, optional temperature sensors, and optional disk usage. This specific verb+resource framing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opnsense_get_firmware_status and opnsense_get_interface_statistics, which are explicitly named as alternatives for other concerns.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Start here when asked how the firewall is doing, what version it runs, or whether it is under load') and explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('This does NOT report firmware updates - use opnsense_get_firmware_status for that' and 'Don't use when: You want per-interface throughput (use opnsense_get_interface_statistics)'). This is exactly the kind of actionable usage guidance that helps an agent select the right tool.

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