sys_info

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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not mention what information is returned, whether it is a summary, or any side effects beyond being read-only.

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, short phrase that efficiently communicates the tool's basic nature. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify the content or format of the 'system information', and the ambiguity with sibling tools makes it insufficient for an agent to know if this is the right call. It is not misleading, but it is incomplete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers them (trivially). The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 states it retrieves system information and is read-only, but it does not specify what subset of system information (e.g., version, CPU, memory, uptime) or how it differs from the many sibling tools like sys_version, show_cpu, and show_memory. It is clear in a general sense but lacks specificity to distinguish it.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that retrieve specific system data (e.g., sys_version, show_cpu, show_memory). The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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