screenscraper_get_systems

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 discloses the operation and the return fields (system IDs, names, manufacturers, supported file extensions), which is good, but it does not mention response format, rate limits, sorting, or whether the list is paginated. Adequate for a simple list operation but not rich.

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: one topic sentence followed by a precise list of returned fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless list endpoint without annotations or an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect: a list of systems and their attributes. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation or result interpretation.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful information about what the returned data contains, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 states a specific action ('Get a list') and a specific resource ('supported retro gaming systems'), and clarifies it is about the system catalog rather than game-level data. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling screenscraper_search_game and screenscraper_get_game_info tools.

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 intent is obvious: use this when the agent needs the full catalog of supported systems, not a specific game lookup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the no-parameter design and system-focused wording make the usage context clear.

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