pio_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it details what is reported, including the safety policy and serial monitor sessions, and explains the behavior when PlatformIO is missing (result tells how to install it). This goes beyond a generic 'get system info' statement.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the key output fields and the usage warning. Every word earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and the description comprehensively covers purpose, output contents, and failure behavior. An output schema is present, and the description aligns with what an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the tool takes no arguments.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PlatformIO system info'), and lists the exact fields reported: version, core directory, safety policy, log directory, and open serial monitor sessions. This clearly distinguishes it from the PlatformIO build/run/monitor sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to call this first in a session, which is clear placement guidance. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but for a system-info check no direct alternative exists among the listed siblings.

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