rundeck_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose whether authentication or specific permissions are required, nor does it mention any side effects or performance considerations. For a 0-parameter tool, the disclosure is minimal.

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 that immediately starts with the verb 'Get', clearly conveying the action. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the returned information. However, it omits details like whether the data is fetched from the local server or a remote endpoint, and it doesn't clarify if system info includes sensitive data or rate limits. For a read-only info tool, it is mostly complete but could be more explicit.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the categories of system information returned (version, uptime, JVM stats, system information), which clarifies the output semantics beyond the empty schema. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 specifies the tool returns 'Rundeck server version, uptime, JVM stats, and system information', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rundeck_healthcheck or rundeck_get_metrics by enumerating the exact types of system information retrieved.

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 alternatives. For example, it does not differentiate from rundeck_healthcheck (which might be more appropriate for simple health checks) or note any prerequisites or context for retrieving system info. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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