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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or whether any system access requirements exist. It does specify the type of information returned, which is useful, but lacks explicit safety or behavioral notes.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed system information') and includes relevant specifics. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the key information fields (OS, architecture, package manager). It does not detail the return format or list every possible field, but the word 'including' signals more, and the description is sufficiently complete for expected use.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter information (there is nothing to add). It does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'detailed system information including OS, architecture, and package manager'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all installation/setup operations (install_package_manager, install_tool, etc.).

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 establishes a clear context of use: whenever system information is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool list makes the differentiation obvious (all are installers), so no exclusions are necessary.

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