system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns system info (version, runtime), implying a read-only, safe operation. However, it does not state side effects (likely none), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is minimally transparent but sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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 conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for a simple tool.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, few siblings), the description is adequate but incomplete. It mentions version and runtime but does not specify the return format, data types, or structure. Without an output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not add parameter information because none exist. Following the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as no additional meaning is needed beyond the schema.

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 returns IP-Symcon system information, specifically version and runtime. It uses a specific verb (gibt zurück) and resource (Systeminformationen), and it distinctively differs from sibling tools such as object_children, script_execute, or variable_read, which operate on other domains.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. Sibling tools suggest different contexts, but no comparative guidance is given.

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