sys_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It lists the data returned and uses the verb 'retrieve', implying read-only, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or whether any permissions are needed. This is a minor gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 well-structured paragraph: an opening purpose statement, an enumerated list of returned information, and a closing use-case sentence. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all key result categories (system, CPU, RAM, storage, network), which gives the agent a clear expectation of the return value. Combined with the explicit use cases, the description is fully complete for this parameterless 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, so the description need not explain any. According to the calibration guide, the baseline is 4; the description correctly focuses on the tool's output instead.

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 uses the specific verb 'retrieve' with the resource 'detailed and comprehensive system information about this Windows PC', and then enumerates the exact categories (hostname, OS version, uptime, CPU, RAM, disk, network). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like process_list and run_command.

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 states it is 'useful for diagnostics, resource monitoring, checking PC specifications, or troubleshooting system issues', giving clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no exclusion is needed.

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