System information

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the 'Read-only' restatement adds nothing; however, with no output schema the description's enumeration of returned fields (versions, memory, volumes, supported commands) is genuine behavioral disclosure not carried by any structured field. Minor gaps remain on formatting or failure behavior if the daemon is unreachable, but the core disclosure is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the return inventory and then the routing advice — a sensible order. The long comma-separated field enumeration and the redundant 'Read-only' clause cost a little, but each sentence contributes information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, why to call it first (volume names, machine identity), and where to go for the metrics it does not cover. Nothing material 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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and focuses on return content instead.

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+resource ("Describe the Amiga") and then enumerates exactly what is reported: Kickstart/Workbench versions, CPU, chip and fast memory, mounted volumes with sizes, and the daemon's 'can:' line. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like amiga_health and amiga_ls without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes ordering ("Call it first to learn which machine you are on and which volume names exist") and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ("For temperatures, CPU load and the last crash use amiga_health instead"). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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