system_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating 'No credentials' and clarifying that the output reflects the current authorized host and user privileges, which helps set expectations about authorization scope.

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, front-loaded sentence that covers the purpose and a key behavioral constraint. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 tool with rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. 'Resource availability' is slightly vague and no output schema exists, but an agent can still correctly infer what information will be provided and that no credentials are needed.

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, so the description bears no obligation to explain parameters. The empty schema and 100% schema description coverage make this straightforward; the description still clarifies the kind of information returned.

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 clearly identifies the resource: current authorized host, user privileges, and resource availability. It distinguishes this from file and process sibling tools by focusing on system environment state, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or use an action verb.

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 implies usage for checking system/environment context before other operations, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings. The 'No credentials' note hints at a low-barrier read operation, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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