Duck identity and uptime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Read-only,' which is an important behavioral trait since it assures the agent the tool has no side effects, and it identifies the data source as configd system.info. It could additionally mention failure behavior or output format, but for a simple read-only identity tool this is largely sufficient.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies what the tool provides, followed by the read-only qualifier. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff or 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only information tool, the description covers the essential content: what data is returned and that it is safe. The only minor limitation is that it does not describe output format or units for uptime, but the low complexity makes that gap acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% of the (nonexistent) parameter space, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details, and none are missing.

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 the robot's name, serial, and uptime, with the underlying source configd system.info. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like duck_health and duck_updates, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets' and does not directly name alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It merely says 'Read-only,' which implies safe usage, but it does not explain when to choose duck_versus over duck_health, duck_updates, or other sibling tools.

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