get_system_info

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing specific return fields (Arch version, kernel, etc.), but does not disclose any potential performance impact, permission requirements, or other behavioral traits. The annotation already covers safety, so the description provides moderate additional context.

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 concise, using a clear structure with a [MONITORING] tag, a sentence about what it does, and a list of returns. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately documents the return values and scope (system info). It is complete for the tool's simplicity and the annotations (readOnlyHint) are consistent.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (since there are none). The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate 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 clearly states it gets comprehensive system info and lists specific items (kernel, architecture, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like analyze_storage or run_system_health_check, so it loses a point for lack of distinctiveness.

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 only says 'Works on any system,' which implies a condition but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or what scenarios favor other sibling tools.

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