system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details each action's behavior (e.g., ping returns pong, run_test injects scripts and writes reports). It is transparent about side effects and output, though it does not explicitly label actions as safe/destructive. The per-action descriptions provide sufficient behavioral clarity.

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 front-loaded with a summary line, but the long action enumeration within the description text is verbose and could be structured more concisely. Still, it is readable and informative.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, multiple actions, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers each action's purpose, parameters, and behavior, leaving no obvious gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping related parameters and explaining which actions use each parameter (e.g., 'Used by: ping' for message). This context goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides system info and control actions (ping, connection, usage, plus PRO actions). The action enum and brief summaries differentiate it from sibling tools like execute_luau or manage_*.

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 usage through the enumerated actions and notes which actions are PRO, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The action list is the primary guidance.

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