get_system_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns system information in JSON format, which is the primary behavior. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple read-only info tool, this is reasonable. The description could add more detail about what 'system info' includes, but it is not contradictory.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose and return type. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. No unnecessary filler.

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 is simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description mentions the return format (JSON string), which suffices for a low-complexity tool. It is complete given the low requirements and the presence of an output schema.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description need not explain parameters because there are none.

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 '获取系统环境信息' (get system environment information), which specifies the verb and resource. It is distinct from the only sibling tool, interactive_feedback, which serves a different purpose. The tool's name aligns with its description.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose implies usage: whenever system environment information is needed. Since there is only one sibling with a clearly different function, the implied usage is sufficient but not explicitly articulated.

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