get_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful detail (English-annotated via name_en) but does not mention return format, pagination/limit behavior, error cases, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a data-fetching tool.

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 very short and contains no filler, but it is a cryptic fragment rather than a clear, front-loaded definition. It earns its place as a hint but is too terse to be considered well-structured guidance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter docs, the description should compensate by explaining the system identifier, the meaning of rows, and the limit parameter. The sibling context includes several similar get_* tools, and this description does not clarify how get_system fits among them.

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 0%, so the description must explain what the system and limit parameters mean. It does not address either parameter; 'English-annotated (name_en)' hints at an output field but not how to fill in the required system argument.

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 identifies the resource ('game system') and a concrete verb ('get'), but 'Rows of a game system' is vague about what is actually returned. It points to game_systems for context but does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like game_systems or system_lookup.

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 only usage guidance is 'see game_systems,' which hints at a relationship but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. No alternatives are named, and the tool's role relative to similar sibling tools is left to inference.

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