quantum_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only status check by describing what is displayed, but it does not state whether the call has side effects, what permissions are required, or how costly the call is. The content of the output is partially described, which is useful but incomplete.

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 sentence with the main purpose front-loaded, and every clause contributes to describing the tool's output. The parenthetical clarifies the two operating modes efficiently. It could be slightly tighter by removing "active system parameters" if that is redundant, but overall it is well structured.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core content but does not explain the output format in detail, nor does it clarify how the reported mode relates to sibling tools like quantum_session_status. With no output schema and no annotations, more could be done to set expectations about what exactly is returned and when this tool is appropriate.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it correctly adds context about what the tool reports without needing parameter 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 uses a concrete verb ("Displays") with a defined resource: Quantum Agent operating mode (Host AI direct control vs Standalone Terminal mode) and active system parameters. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as quantum_session_status, which likely overlaps.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like quantum_session_status, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The read-only informational nature is implied by "Displays" but the agent receives no instruction on selecting this tool over its siblings.

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