opnsense_sys_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), which implies no destructive effects. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe, idempotent, or discuss any authentication requirements or rate limits. A 3 is appropriate given the straightforward nature but lack of explicit behavioral details.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then enumerates key details in parentheses. Every word earns its place, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lists the main categories of returned information, providing sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect. It could be improved by mentioning the format or structure (e.g., JSON object), but is otherwise adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds meaning by listing the specific data fields that will be returned (CPU, memory, etc.), which goes beyond the empty schema and helps the agent understand the tool's output.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'system status information', and explicitly lists the included metrics (hostname, versions, CPU, memory, uptime, disk usage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like 'opnsense_diag_system_info' which might have a broader or different scope.

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 for retrieving system status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'opnsense_diag_system_info'. There are no when-not or exclusions stated, making it adequate but not explicit.

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