oracle_linux_kernel_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists output fields and does not mention that the tool is read-only, requires no special permissions, or any potential side effects. For a presumably safe read operation, this is a gap.

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, concise sentence listing the output components. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with only one parameter, with no unnecessary words. It could be improved by adding a verb, but it is efficient.

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 lack of an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the output fields. However, it does not explain the output format (e.g., key-value pairs, table) or how the 'target' parameter influences results. It provides enough for a basic understanding but lacks completeness for complex usage.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the parameter 'target' is explained in the schema but not in the description, and its effect on the output is not clarified. The description does not compensate for any lack of schema detail.

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 provides kernel version, release, architecture, UEK version, and boot parameters, which distinguishes it from siblings like oracle_linux_kernel_modules and oracle_linux_kernel_parameters. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different kernel and system aspects, explicit usage context (e.g., 'Use this to check current kernel version, not kernel_parameters for runtime changes') would help the agent select correctly.

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