get_system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuine behavioral quirk: specific SCPI queries (:SYSTem:OPTion:STATus? and :OPTion:VALid?) are skipped because they hang on firmware 00.01.00, plus where to find the opt-in alternative. It does not state whether the call is read-only or anything about latency/refresh, but the failure-mode disclosure is real added value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first enumerates the returned content, the second flags the risky queries and routes to the alternative. The content is front-loaded and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers what the call reports and the one known failure mode with a pointer to get_option_status, leaving only the overlap with get_system_config/get_lan_config unexplained.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the concrete content returned: firmware, installed modules/options, hardware layout, and LAN parameters, which is far more specific than restating the name. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_option_status via the note. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as get_system_config or get_idn, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives one explicit routing rule: option-status probing belongs to get_option_status, not here, because those queries hang on firmware 00.01.00. That is useful, but there is no general guidance on when to call this versus get_system_config, get_lan_config, or get_idn, which overlap heavily with the listed content.

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