query_systems

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides some useful behavior details, such as substring matching, filtering on status.data.http_connected, and the preview_limit cap at 50, but it does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation or explain whether connection health is actively probed or reflects cached data.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter definitions. No redundant or filler content exists; every line adds value.

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 optional-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering behavior, and parameter semantics well. It could go slightly further by noting the response shape or data freshness expectations, but the output schema already mitigates the need to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter beyond the schema. It clarifies alias as a substring, connected as a filter on a specific status field, and preview_limit as a maximum capped at 50—useful semantic details not present in the raw schema.

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 'Query registered test systems and their connection health,' identifying both the specific resource (registered test systems) and the scope (connection health). This distinguishes it from sibling query tools like query_assets, query_products, and query_specs, which operate on different resource types.

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 purpose statement implies when to use the tool—when you need test system information and connection health—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are offered.

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