System information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: output is 'sanitized' and environment variables are deliberately not read, which tells the agent this is a privacy-safe diagnostic call.

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 that states the action and the key constraint with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and zero parameters means no schema gaps. The description covers purpose and the sanitization boundary; it could say marginally more about what 'runtime metadata' excludes, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, which per the rubric sets a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and needs to add no further parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('OS and runtime metadata'), with a distinguishing scope qualifier ('sanitized ... without reading environment variables') that separates it from data-gathering siblings like installed_developer_tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope constraint makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this versus toolbox_server_status, toolbox_metrics_snapshot, or disk_usage, all of which also return system-level data. The 'without reading environment variables' clause hints at a privacy boundary but does not frame it as a use/don't-use condition.

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