get-system-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get system-level information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what kind of information is returned, whether there are any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic read implication.

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 extremely concise ('Get system-level information') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded and wastes no words, it fails to provide the necessary context that would make it genuinely helpful. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding sufficient value.

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's apparent simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'system-level information' encompasses or what the return value looks like. With no output schema and multiple similar sibling tools, the description should provide more context about what distinguishes this tool's output from alternatives like get-health-status or get-stats.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool where the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 'Get system-level information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-system-info'. It doesn't specify what type of system information is retrieved or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get-health-status', 'get-stats', or 'get-version' that also provide system-related information. The purpose is vague and lacks specificity about what distinguishes this tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear to provide system information (get-health-status, get-stats, get-version, get-settings), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those alternatives. No context, exclusions, or usage scenarios are mentioned.

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