graylog_get_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the call is a read-only operation ('Verify', 'return') and indicates the output type, but does not elaborate on access requirements, potential side effects (likely none), or response format. This is adequate for a simple system-info getter.

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 states the action and the result. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and high-level output. It could mention that this is a lightweight health-check call, but the provided information is largely complete for invoking it.

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 zero parameters, which the schema makes fully explicit (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 since there are no parameter semantics to explain.

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 verifies Graylog connectivity and returns cluster version/node metadata. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('system info'), and is distinct from sibling tools focused on profiles, messages, and diagnostics.

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 clearly implies this is for checking connectivity and retrieving system-level info, which is a distinct use case from the sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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