get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Retrieve' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: first states purpose and method, second lists attributes and use cases. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

The tool has an output schema (as per context signals), so return values need not be detailed. The description covers the key attributes returned and lists relevant use cases (inventory, monitoring, diagnostics), providing sufficient context for a read-only tool with a single parameter.

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 single parameter device_name is already described in the schema ('Name of the device in the inventory'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves structured system-level information via gNMI, listing specific attributes like hostname, software version, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_logs, get_routing_info, and get_interface_info, which target other data categories.

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?

Description mentions usefulness for inventory, monitoring, and diagnostics, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or offer alternative tools, though sibling differentiation is implicit.

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