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, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no permission or authentication notes, no indication of cost, freshness, or whether values are live or cached. The field list implies a passive read, but that is inferred, not stated. For a metrics-style endpoint on a live service, more disclosure is expected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment listing exactly the returned metrics, with no filler, hedging, or redundancy. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter getter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and there are no parameters to cover. The remaining shortfall is sibling differentiation: the description never says how this differs from get_host_info, server_info, or get_ftl_info, which an agent selecting among 70+ tools genuinely needs.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is also 100% with additionalProperties false, meaning no hidden inputs exist.

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 enumerates the resource contents (uptime, memory, swap, CPU load, process count) but is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no scope statement, so it reads as a data listing rather than an action. It gives no differentiation from close siblings like get_host_info, server_info, or get_ftl_info, which likely overlap heavily. An agent can guess the payload but cannot reliably tell when this tool beats get_host_info.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With at least three sibling tools returning host/server-level information, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap, leaving selection to guesswork.

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