get_system_overview

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already confirms this is a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds the component list but no deeper behavioral context (e.g., snapshot vs. aggregated data, performance implications, or how it relates to historical tools), so it meets the bar only partially.

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 Chinese sentence that begins with the verb+object and compresses all key output domains into a compact colon-separated list. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only, no-parameter overview with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the tool's scope, and the annotation covers the safety profile. The main gap is the absence of sibling differentiation, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema keep this from being a major omission.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description's component list informs the agent of what data will be returned, compensating for the lack of parameters worth documenting. No additional parameter-level detail is needed.

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 clear verb+resource pattern ('获取系统概览' / get system overview) and enumerates six concrete components (CPU, memory, traffic, version, uptime, online users). This distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like get_memory_history or get_firmware_version, which cover only individual aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many more specific sibling tools (e.g., get_memory_history, get_terminal_list, get_firmware_version, get_wan_status). No exclusions, preconditions, or alternative recommendations are given.

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