get_system_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns specific system information, which is consistent with annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance impact, required permissions) are disclosed, but given the low complexity, this is adequate.

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 at two sentences. It front- loads with '[MONITORING]' for quick categorization, lists what the tool returns, and includes a clear statement of universal compatibility. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only tool with good annotations, the description includes all necessary information: purpose, expected outputs, and compatibility. No output schema exists, but the description lists key return fields, making it complete for the agent to decide invocation.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description lists the return values (kernel, arch, uptime, etc.), adding context beyond the empty schema. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that expectation.

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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive system information' and lists specific items like kernel version, architecture, hostname, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a general info monitor, while siblings focus on specific analyses or health checks.

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 says 'Works on any system,' implying broad applicability without restrictions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'diagnose_system' or 'run_system_health_check', which could lead to ambiguity in tool selection.

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