get_system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is a diagnostic/identity check, but says nothing about cost, latency, or freshness of the reported metrics. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The enumerated fields come first, then the usage hint, so the most discriminating information is front-loaded.

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?

A no-parameter, read-only informational tool with an output schema, so return values need not be described. Purpose, scope, and usage are all present; 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, so the schema has nothing to document and the description cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless call.

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 (Get) and resource (NAS hardware and software info) and enumerates exactly what is returned: model, firmware, CPU, RAM, temperature, uptime. This is clearly distinguishable from data-movement siblings, though it does not name the closest neighbour (get_resource_usage) that also reports CPU/RAM.

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?

"Use this to identify the NAS and check its basic health" gives an explicit usage context, so the agent knows when to reach for it. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, and the overlap with get_resource_usage is left unaddressed.

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