get_system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists what information is returned, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or describe any other behavioral traits. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the tool's scope and output fields without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 getter with no output schema, the description clearly enumerates what information will be returned. It is complete for most uses, though it could optionally explain domain-specific terms like 'CE demand' or 'IS vulnerability profile' for less familiar agents.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'system' with an enum and description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's verb (Get) and resource (detailed information about a Panksepp primary emotional system), and lists specific content areas (neural basis, behavioral signature, CE demand, IS vulnerability profile, political bridge). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pattern_info and list_all.

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 implies usage when one needs information about a specific emotional system, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_to_political or analyze_behavior. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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