system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' plus the enumerated read-only metrics reasonably implies a non-mutating inspection call, but it says nothing about permissions required, behavior on an unreachable host, or timing/rate characteristics.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned fields, with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only inspection tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description lists the concrete return fields (kernel, uptime, load, memory), which usefully compensates for the missing output schema. Only the absence of any usage framing keeps it short of 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?

The single 'host' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the default-host fallback. The description adds no host syntax, formatting, or resolution detail, so the schema does the work and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the exact resources returned: kernel, uptime, load average, memory usage. This content list distinguishes it functionally from siblings like disk_usage or process_top, though it never names or explicitly contrasts those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for system_info versus neighbors such as process_top, service_status, or disk_usage. The only usage-like cue is the host parameter's 'omit for the default host' behavior, which lives in the schema rather than the description.

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