winops_sys_info

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 known. The description adds that the detailed flag includes boot time, users, and CPU frequency, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential performance impact or that some fields might be platform-dependent. With annotations carrying the core safety info, 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 efficient: one sentence defining purpose, then a return format block and examples. The JSON return format block is a bit verbose for the description but is useful context. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose statement. Could be trimmed, but overall concise.

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?

The tool is simple (1 optional param, output defined). The description fully explains the return format and the effect of the detailed param. The output schema is provided in the description itself. Given the low complexity, the description is complete. No additional context needed.

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 coverage is 100%: the detailed parameter is described in the input schema ('Include boot time, users, and CPU frequency.'). The description's return format reinforces the meaning ('detailed only') but adds no additional semantic content beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 exactly what the tool returns ('OS platform, Python version, CPU core count, and total memory') with a specific verb ('Return'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like system_health_card and winops_sys_health, which likely provide health status rather than raw system info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool's name (sys_info) is self-explanatory, the description doesn't explain scenarios (e.g., 'use this for basic system identification, use system_health_card for overall system status'). No exclusions are given.

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