get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the output schema documents the returned stats, but the description says nothing about authentication/permission requirements (e.g. admin API key) or any rate limiting. It is a minimal disclosure for a no-parameter 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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and the exact resource. Nothing to trim.

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 no parameters and an output schema covering return values, the description needs only to name the resource and scope, which it does. The one gap is the absence of any note on access requirements for a server-diagnostics endpoint.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('ChangeDetection.io server stats and health'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the watch/tag siblings, but the system-level scope makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking server health, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use trigger, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. For a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate but not helpful.

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