get_system_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a fixed 99-byte payload returned as hex alongside a decoded counterpart, which tells the agent what the call actually yields.

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?

One dense sentence with the payload description front-loaded and the use case trailing. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so at a high level (raw hex plus decoded settings). It stops short of explaining the decoded portion's structure or how to interpret unmapped bytes, which leaves a small gap for a diagnostic tool.

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, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It correctly implies the call is unparameterized.

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 names a specific artifact — the raw 99-byte system state in hex, paired with decoded settings — which is far more precise than the vague name implies. It hints at its distinction from get_status/get_settings via the exploration purpose, but never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

'For exploring unmapped bytes' implies the use case (diagnostics/low-level inspection), which is more than nothing. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_settings or get_status instead, and no warning that this is a diagnostic rather than a routine read.

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