Get System Architectures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's value is in explaining the return structure: 'Returns a mapping of distro family names to their supported architecture list.' This adds useful context beyond the annotation, though the output schema may provide similar detail.

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: the first clearly states the purpose, the second explains the return format. No unnecessary words, well 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?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema (context signal). The description succinctly covers the purpose and return structure, which is sufficient given the schema documents the output format. No apparent gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter fqdn having a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get supported OS families and architectures for a Beaker system.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_details (general details) and list_os_families (all families, not per system).

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 a specific system (via fqdn) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it provide context for when not to use it. It is adequate but lacks comparative guidance.

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