system_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a pure read with no side effects, which is adequate for a zero-parameter introspection tool, but the description never states that it is read-only, side-effect free, or that the values (hostname, cwd) may be environment-sensitive.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and then the concrete payload. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to frame what the tool returns, and the field enumeration does that. It stops short of noting that the snapshot reflects the server host rather than the caller's machine, which matters for a system-info 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 takes no parameters at all, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the returned fields, which it does list. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a specific resource ('host system information') and enumerates the exact fields returned (OS, python, CPUs, hostname, cwd). That enumeration is what separates it from siblings like system_disk_usage, system_env_vars, and system_now, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

When-to-use is only implied by the field list: an agent infers it should call this when it needs OS/Python/CPU/hostname/cwd facts. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for narrower queries such as disk usage or environment variables.

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