get_system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the information is 'static' hardware specs and not live metrics, which sets expectations about data freshness beyond what the annotations convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core summary, followed by the contents list and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the explicit 'do NOT use' clause is high-value guidance with no wasted words.

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?

The description names the primary alternative for the tool's main boundary (live usage), lists the returned data categories, and is supported by strong annotations. With no parameters, no output schema, and clear scope, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly 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 input schema is empty, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The description's content list is sufficient, and it cannot add meaning to non-existent parameters. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 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 clear summary of the tool's scope—a 'static hardware specs bundle'—and enumerates the exact component categories it covers: CPU model, RAM capacity, GPU model, disk partitions, OS version, USB devices, monitor config, and BIOS. It explicitly contrasts with get_snapshot for live metrics, which distinguishes it from a key sibling without requiring schema inspection.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user wants to know WHAT their machine is made of.' It also gives a direct when-not-to-use instruction and names the alternative, get_snapshot, for live usage. This is fully explicit routing guidance.

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