get_sysinfo

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description reinforces it by calling the operation 'Read-only' and specifying what data is returned. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the operation returns identity, firmware, and hardware/model details, and can optionally target a device. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful sibling-pointer and parameter details. The Args block repeats schema information exactly, which is mild redundancy, but overall every section earns its place and the length is appropriate.

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 read-only getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned, the read-only nature, the site/device scoping, and the main alternative tool. It is not exhaustive about response format or errors, but it is sufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the description's Args section essentially duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get system information for the site controller,' then enumerates exactly what is returned (controller identity, firmware version, hardware/model details). It also distinguishes itself from get_site_settings, so an agent can clearly tell this tool apart from a likely sibling.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use get_site_settings when tunable settings are needed instead of controller metadata. It also clarifies the optional device argument and the default behavior ('omit for default'), giving clear selection and invocation guidance.

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