system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does declare read-only, which is real value. However it omits remote-execution concerns such as what happens if the named host is unreachable or whether the call blocks, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, that enumerates the returned metrics without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-optional-param read-only tool with no output schema, listing the metric set is enough to call it correctly; the schema handles host semantics. Missing only failure-mode context for an unreachable remote host.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'host' parameter already documents HOMELAB_HOSTS names and the omit-for-local behavior. The description mentions nothing about the parameter, so it earns only the baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb (Get) plus the exact resource and the four metrics returned (uptime, load average, memory, disk usage). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like disk_detail or service_status, which would be needed for a 5.

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 use this tool rather than disk_detail (deeper disk info) or service_status (per-service state), even though disk usage overlaps directly with a sibling. The parenthetical '(read-only)' hints at safety but not at selection.

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