list_system_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns environment information and versions, which is a mild behavioral detail. It does not disclose response format or potential latency, but with strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 very short: one sentence plus an endpoint line. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The endpoint line is arguably redundant but harmless. It earns a 4 for being concise and clear, though it could omit the endpoint or add a bit more context.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (environment info and versions). The only minor gap is not describing the structure of the output, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, adequate for a simple status 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description correctly indicates the tool takes no input and simply returns environment info. With 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description adequately conveys that no arguments are 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Return environment information and versions.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_system_health or list_system_ping, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The endpoint line adds a concrete reference.

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 implies usage: call this when you need environment/version info. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the verb 'Return environment information and versions' gives a clear context. Sibling names like list_system_health and list_system_ping suggest related tools, but no explicit routing is provided.

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