beszel_systems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it hits the hub directly, whether it paginates, or what the return payload shape is beyond three field names.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the rationale follows. The em-dash aside about duplicates/removed nodes is slightly tangential but does not bloat the definition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what a card contains but leaves the filter input and the read-only nature undocumented. Adequate, but with clear gaps an agent would need to guess around.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'filter' parameter, and the description never mentions it, so its matching semantics (substring, exact name, host?) are entirely unexplained. The field list describes return data, not the input parameter.

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 identifies the resource (Beszel hub 'systems'/'cards') and enumerates exposed fields (name, host, status), but omits an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'. It is distinguishable from beszel_system_edit only by inference, not by any stated contrast.

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?

Usage is implied through a narrow scenario: finding duplicate cards from a newly created agent and stale cards of removed nodes. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like beszel_system_edit, nor any exclusion or filtering advice.

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