System Info Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' establishes a read-only operation and the Returns block enumerates the categories of information (version, storage, registries, runtime), but it says nothing about permission requirements (rootless vs root), cost, or whether any system state is touched, which is a meaningful gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short lines, verb-and-resource front-loaded, with the return contents separated into a Returns block. Nothing is padded, though the Returns block largely duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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 inspection tool with an output schema present, the description supplies enough for correct invocation: what it retrieves and that it takes no arguments. Only the absence of any permission or scope caveat keeps it from being fully complete.

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 there are no argument semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly signals that no filtering or scoping is available.

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 and resource: 'Get Podman system information,' which clearly separates it from the container/pod/image/network/volume siblings that all operate on a named object. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the closest sibling, system_df_tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the system-wide read used when no specific container, pod, or image is the target. There is no statement of when-not to use it or why one would pick it over system_df_tool, both of which are read-only system queries.

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