get-system-info

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with 'GET request', so no contradiction, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of permissions required, response shape, size, or caching behavior. Surfacing the raw endpoint path is the only behavioral detail, which is thin for a tool with no output schema.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what this returns, and it says nothing. For a zero-parameter read tool some sparseness is acceptable, but 'system info' is too ambiguous to invoke confidently.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The absence of parameters is fully consistent with the empty input schema.

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 only restates the tool name as an HTTP call: 'Make a GET request to /ccm/api/1.0/system/info'. It never says what 'system info' contains (version, health, configuration?) or how that differs from sibling reads like get-account or get-sites, so an agent cannot judge relevance without guessing.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. Nothing indicates whether this should be called before other operations, or why one would pick it over get-account.

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