getSystemInfo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return contents in detail, including platform-specific commands (df -h, wmic). It does not mention permissions or error scenarios, but given the read-only nature, this is 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 well-structured paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose, then listing return contents, and ending with usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (OS, CPU, memory, disk, uptime, hostname) and provides usage context. It covers all necessary information for a tool with zero parameters and simple read functionality.

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 schema has zero parameters, and the description confirms 'This tool takes no parameters.' With 100% schema coverage and no params, the baseline is 4; the description adds marginal value by explicitly stating the absence of parameters.

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 retrieves comprehensive system information, listing specific resources (OS, CPU, memory, disk, uptime, hostname). It distinguishes itself from siblings like listProcesses by covering broader system state rather than a single aspect.

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 provides explicit use cases ('assess available resources, diagnose environment issues, gather context'), but does not directly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear without exclusions.

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