Get boot override configuration

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds contextual value by detailing the return envelope (system_uri and boot configuration block) and providing an example call, which is sufficient given the annotation coverage. No contradictions exist.

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: two sentences plus a compact example. It front-loads the primary purpose and returns information without 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?

This is a simple read-only tool with clear annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema. The description adequately covers purpose, return shape, and example usage. No material gaps are present.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters (endpoint and system_uri). The description provides an example using system_uri, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.

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 returns the Boot section for a system, with the specific purpose of inspecting override target, mode, and enablement. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_system, which returns the entire system resource.

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 implies the use case ('so callers can inspect...') and gives an example invocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to know when to choose this over broader get_system.

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