system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, return format, or side effects. The existence of an output schema is not referenced, and the description is silent on what the tool returns or how it operates.

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 extremely short but underspecified. It is not concise in a helpful way; it omits critical information. Every sentence should add value, but here it only repeats the tool name. The structure is minimal and ineffective.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what system info is returned, its format, or how it relates to sibling tools. The agent is left without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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?

While there are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), the description adds no meaning beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is not met because the description does not explain what information the tool provides or the context of its output.

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 'Kali Agent MCP tool: system_info' is essentially a tautology, restating the tool name with a prefix. It does not specify what the tool does or what information it provides. With sibling tools like environment_info, server_health, and server_capabilities, there is no differentiation, making it unclear when to use this tool over others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or examples. The agent receives no information about appropriate contexts for invocation.

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