system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile needs no restating. The description adds the field inventory, which is useful scope context, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how the data is refreshed.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists contents without a word of filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The field list gives enough scope for an agent to know what it will receive, with only minor gaps around caching/refresh behaviour.

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 the baseline for this dimension is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and the enumerated fields relate to outputs rather than parameters.

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 names a specific resource (NAS hardware and DSM version) and enumerates exactly which fields it returns: model, CPU, RAM, uptime, temperature, crash/upgrade flags, USB devices. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like system_utilization or hardware_power.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The usage is only implied by the resource name, leaving the agent to infer how this differs from system_utilization or hardware_power.

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