get_system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'call first' behavioral cue, which is useful context. It doesn't disclose return format or any other behavioral traits, but with annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences: the first lists the returned information, the second gives the usage directive. It is front-loaded with purpose and wastes no 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to call it. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention if the result is cached or if it reflects live state, but that's minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameters for the description to explain. The description's enumeration of returned data gives some sense of scope, but parameter semantics is not applicable. Baseline 4 is correct for zero parameters.

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 resource: host info, workspaces, default workspace, and available integrations. It's not a tautology like the name 'get_system_info', and it enumerates what is returned. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like list_workspaces or capability_list, which may overlap in scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Call this first in a new conversation.' This is a clear, actionable directive that tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool, with no ambiguity or exclusions needed.

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