get_system_config

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by revealing the expected content of the response (home directory, username), which is useful since there is no output schema. There is no contradiction with the 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds specific examples in a parenthetical. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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, read-only, idempotent configuration getter, the description is sufficient: it names the action, the resource, and representative return values. The annotations cover safety and side-effect expectations, so 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully self-explanatory, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and nothing is left undocumented.

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 (Get), a clear resource (system configuration), and concrete examples of what it returns (home directory, username). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like get_system_info or get_system_os, so it loses the top score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many nearby system-related getters, nor any exclusions or alternatives. For a zero-parameter read-only call the need is modest, but the absence of any usage direction is still a gap.

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