get_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, and explicitly enumerates the data returned (model, firmware version, serial number). This adds value beyond the tool name, though it could mention the absence of side effects or output format.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by examples of the returned data. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or tangential information.

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 simple zero-parameter getter with no output schema, this description is largely complete. It names the key return fields, giving the agent enough context to anticipate the response. However, it does not specify the exact response structure or list all possible fields, leaving a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline score for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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' and resource 'FRITZ!Box system information', and lists concrete examples (model, firmware version, serial number). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wan_status or get_device_stats, which target other aspects of the device.

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 clear context: it is for retrieving general system information. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the resource is distinct enough that no exclusions are necessary. The tool has no parameters, so usage is straightforward.

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