system_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; the field list implies a harmless read-only snapshot with no parameters, which is reasonable but never stated. It doesn't say whether values are point-in-time, whether the call is expensive, or whether elevated permissions affect what is reported (e.g. swap or disk 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the most distinguishing fields and wastes no words. The only weakness is that it is a comma-list fragment rather than a sentence with a subject and verb, which reads slightly less crisply than it could.

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?

Given an output schema is present and there are no parameters, the description only needs to signal the domain and scope, which it does. Enumerating the returned fields is partly redundant with the output schema, but it makes the tool identifiable at a glance, and no safety or side-effect information is required for a no-arg read.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure, and the schema confirms an empty argument object.

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?

Enumerates the exact resource it retrieves (OS, kernel, uptime, CPU, load, memory, swap, disk) and scopes it to 'this machine', which implicitly separates it from workspace_info or environment_variables. It lacks a verb, so the action (retrieve a snapshot) must be inferred from the noun list, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_processes, environment_variables, workspace_info, or service_status, all of which live in the same sibling set. Usage is only inferable from the field list, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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