hana_get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the tool returns data without revealing safety, authentication needs, or potential side effects. As a read-only operation, this is minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and use case. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded. Every sentence 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 no parameters and an output schema is present (handling return values), the description is complete for basic monitoring. It could optionally mention that data is real-time or cached, but overall it sufficiently covers the tool's interface.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details as there are none, and it correctly provides no misleading information.

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 states the tool returns SAP HANA Cloud system information including memory, CPU, and active alerts. It distinguishes itself from sibling HANA tools like hana_execute_query or hana_list_tables by focusing on system monitoring.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Útil para monitorización básica del Free Tier' (useful for basic Free Tier monitoring). While it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for basic decision-making.

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