switch_get_system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers two non-obvious facts: the operation is non-mutating and it 'logs in lazily', which tells the agent it need not call switch_login first. It does not cover auth failure behavior, error modes, or rate limits, so it is not complete.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the safety profile front-loaded and the returned fields listed compactly. Every clause 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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply both the return contents and the safety profile, and it does both. It stops short of describing failure or timeout behavior, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient.

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 schema cannot be improved by parameter documentation and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the return surface, which is a reasonable substitute given there is no output schema.

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 enumerates exactly what is returned (model, hardware revision, firmware, MAC, IP, netmask, gateway, session model), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly separates it from siblings like switch_get_ports or switch_get_vlans. It lacks an explicit verb framing ('returns switch system information'), but the field list communicates the same thing.

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 'Read-only' and 'does not mutate anything' notes imply this is a safe introspection call, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for it versus switch_status or switch_check_auth. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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