system_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately states what information is shown, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as the output format, real-time nature, permission requirements, or side effects. For a simple read-only tool this is minimally adequate, but lacks depth.

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 of 12 words that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word contributes to the purpose. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not mention the output format or differentiate from sibling diagnostic tools like diagnose_vps. For a simple tool this is adequate, but not fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description confirms that no inputs are needed, adding meaning beyond the empty schema. It communicates what the tool will return, fulfilling the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'VPS system info', listing the exact categories (uptime, OS, CPU, memory, swap, load, kernel). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_ps or network_info, which target different subsystems.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or suggest when another tool (e.g., diagnose_vps, top_processes) would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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