Get Agent Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that the thread list shows live states rather than stack traces, and by itemizing the returned data categories. This exceeds the baseline set by annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the primary action and content list, and the second adding a key distinction and usage context. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only annotations, well-documented parameters, and the explicit contrast with thread dump, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the listed content categories sufficiently indicate what will be returned.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their semantics. The description's mention of threads, environment, and sockets loosely maps to the include_* parameters but does not add deeper meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('detailed agent runtime information') and enumerates the exact contents: thread list with states, active services, environment variables, and socket connections. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'get_thread_dump' by contrasting live thread states with stack traces.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Use for deep agent-level investigation' and explicitly names an alternative ('unlike thread dump which captures stack traces'), giving a clear when-not-to-use condition. The parameter description also references 'get_system_overview' as a source for obj_hash, establishing a prerequisite flow.

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