psinfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this wraps Sysinternals PsInfo and gives the return shape, but it omits key traits such as whether administrative rights are required (PsInfo typically needs elevation for hotfixes/services), that it is a read-only operation, and that it may be slow to execute.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by the wrapper note and the return format. Compact and free of filler, though the return-format block partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema coverage on a zero-required-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and execution backend sufficiently to invoke it. The only meaningful gap is the unaddressed local-versus-remote distinction from psinfo_remote.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both show_hotfixes (-h) and show_services (-s) are fully documented in the schema with their flags. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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 and resource — 'Show detailed system information' — and enumerates the content categories (OS version, uptime, hotfixes, services), plus names the underlying Sysinternals PsInfo tool. It is clear what the tool does, but it never clarifies that it targets the local host, leaving the split against the sibling psinfo_remote unresolved within the definition itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The presence of the sibling psinfo_remote makes the local-vs-remote choice the single most important routing decision, and the description does not address it at all, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g. elevation).

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