ubuntu_get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that no external commands are run, states the return contract as 'JSON string in unified {ok, data|error}', and explains the difference between compact and detailed output modes. It does not cover permissions or failure conditions, but for a read-only telemetry tool this is solid coverage.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, mode behavior, then args/returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers its purpose, output modes, return contract, and the main telemetry fields. The raw payload content is not enumerated, but that is not essential for correct invocation. The description is complete enough for an agent to safely call this tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter name 'detailed'. It explicitly explains that detailed=True returns the full raw payload and implicitly that the default/null case uses compact mode, which adds real meaning 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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('host/system telemetry'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does not run external commands, and the key fields list (OS, memory, disk summary, user, host, platform) further distinguishes it from similar tools like get_server_status.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named sibling alternatives. The phrase 'without running external commands' implies this is the safer alternative to execute_command for telemetry, and 'Compact mode is optimized for agent decision-making' gives a rough selection cue, but the guidance is implied rather than directly stated.

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