System info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest value by naming the exact categories returned, but it does not disclose operational details such as output format or timing. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter read-only tool, but it does not exceed the baseline.

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 one sentence with a leading verb and a compact list of deliverables, containing no filler or redundant restatements of the title. Every phrase 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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and clear safety annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call it correctly. It enumerates all the information categories the tool reports, which is all an agent needs for this simple read-only snapshot.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Following the 0-parameter baseline, the description does not need to compensate, and listing the reported data categories is more than sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates a precise set of system data: macOS version, hardware, memory, load, uptime, and current user. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_processes, get_clipboard, and list_apps by content, even though it does not name them.

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 use when an agent needs a high-level snapshot of macOS system state, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces that it is a safe diagnostic tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling covers this exact aggregate of system information and there are no preconditions.

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