Get system info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds one extra behavioral trait: secret-looking keys are redacted, which is valuable for the agent to know (safety/security). That goes beyond the annotations, though it's a single note.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The main content (what is returned) is front-loaded, and the redaction note is added as a secondary detail. Every word 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 parameterless read-only tool with safety annotations already covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the return content and the redaction behavior. No output schema exists, but listing the returned fields suffices for this simple tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivial and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rules, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 returns hostname, OS, architecture, uptime, user, home, and environment variables — a specific list that distinguishes it from siblings like get_network_info (network-specific) and get_system_stats (likely metrics). The verb is implicit in the title, but the resource scope is explicit.

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 lists the exact information returned, making it clear this is for system identity and environment retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the field list implies the use case well enough. No misleading guidance.

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