get_system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about what the returned document contains (components, connections, changed states, controls, optional simulation block) and its downstream role with load_system. It does not cover errors or missing IDs, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core meaning and followed by a useful workflow hint. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description covers document contents and workflow adequately. The main gap is the undefined system_id parameter, which prevents full end-to-end understanding of how to call the 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 schema provides only an untyped system_id with no description, and the description never mentions this parameter. With 0% schema coverage and no compensating text, the agent must infer the meaning of system_id from the tool name and description alone.

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 names the resource (system document, design 6.3) and lists its contents, making clear that this tool retrieves the full system document. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like export_system or describe_component, but the combination of name and description is sufficiently specific.

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 instruction 'Pass it to load_system later' provides a concrete workflow context and indicates when this tool is useful. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but it gives clear enough context for deciding.

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