system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'Get system info'—it merely restates the return type, which is already captured in the output schema.

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 very short (two sentences), but the second sentence ('Returns: dict') is redundant given the output schema. It could be more concise by omitting the return line, but overall it is not wasteful.

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 parameterless tool with comprehensive annotations and a defined output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the purpose, and the structured fields cover the rest. Minor gap: no indication of the scope of 'system info' (e.g., version, status?), but the output schema would clarify.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100% (no params), and the description is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 system info from LibreNMS, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover alerts, devices, and other specific operations.

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. While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no explicit context or exclusionary advice to aid an agent in selecting it over other info tools.

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