get_system_global

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a safe read-only operation and lists the fields returned, but does not mention permissions, VDOM scoping behavior, or any limitations of the global view.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of covered settings. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states scope and enumerates the returned settings. It could be improved by clarifying VDOM behavior and differentiating from adjacent system getters, but no critical information is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with device_id and vdom documented directly in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("global system settings") and enumerates the main fields covered (hostname, admin ports/timeouts, timezone, management features). It is clear enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly name nearby alternatives like get_ntp_settings or get_system_time.

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?

Usage is implied by "Show global system settings": it is clearly read-only inspection. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other system-level tools such as get_system_time, get_ntp_settings, or get_dns_settings, which are close siblings.

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