get_system_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context by listing the exact data returned (SUSE variant, kernel, architecture, memory) and noting it works on any system. This goes beyond the annotation, though it could have mentioned output format or whether elevated permissions are needed.

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 two sentences and front-loads the purpose with the 'MONITORING' tag. There is slight redundancy between the two sentences (both mention kernel and architecture), but overall it is concise and to the point, without unnecessary filler.

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 no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what information is returned and notes platform compatibility. It lacks details like the exact return format or suggested use cases, but the given information is sufficient for basic invocation and interpretation.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameter details, which are irrelevant here. It adds no unnecessary parameter descriptions.

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's action ('Get comprehensive system information') and specifies the resource (system information) with a list of fields (kernel version, architecture, hostname, uptime, memory). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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 includes a 'MONITORING' tag and says 'Works on any system', which implies a general monitoring use case. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus a sibling like 'diagnose_system' or 'analyze_storage', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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