get_system_health

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or has no side effects, which could leave the agent uncertain. However, the listed fields (status, uptime, etc.) suggest a safe query, so it is not misleading but could be more explicit.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous text.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description adequately outlines the main fields. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the output schema contains these fields, but overall it is sufficient for a low-complexity 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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no param info because none is needed.

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 retrieves overall system health and names specific fields: status, uptime, reboot-required flag, fan status. This distinguishes it from many sibling get_* tools that target specific subsystems (e.g., get_disk_info, get_network_info).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that would make this preferable over other health-related tools.

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