get_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the kind of data returned (e.g., BiosVersion, HostName, IndicatorLED, Boot settings) and indicates it returns 'all hardware details,' making the read-only nature evident. It does not mention potential errors or auth requirements, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a brief example plus a list of key response fields. Every word 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to specify the target, and what fields are included. It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape, but the listed fields and 'all hardware details' give adequate completeness.

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 already provides a complete description of the single parameter (system_id) with examples and guidance. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get full details') and identifies the exact resource ('computer system by its ID'), with examples. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_systems, which lists systems rather than retrieving a single system's details.

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 the tool is for retrieving detailed information about a specific system, and the parameter schema adds 'Use list_systems to find IDs.' However, the description itself does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives or name sibling tools, though the context is clear.

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