get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a read ('Get') and lists output fields, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, requires no permissions, has no side effects, or describe the response format. This leaves the agent without confirmation of safety or behavioral expectations beyond the basic verb.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of key fields. There is no extraneous information.

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 tool with an output schema, the description only needs to orient the agent. Listing four key fields (hostname, version, user, uptime) is sufficient for a straightforward system info getter; the 'including' qualifier and output schema cover the rest.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema inherently covers all parameter needs. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'macOS system information', listing concrete fields (hostname, version, user, uptime). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters that target other domains, such as get_wifi_network or get_frontmost_app.

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 implies usage when macOS-level system details are needed by enumerating the specific fields returned. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but there is no sibling tool with overlapping functionality, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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