get_system_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey safety and behavior directly. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the returned information, but it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., permissions, network dependency, or caching). For a simple info retrieval, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses a colon to list the specific information included. It contains no fluff or redundant detail.

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 output schema and a zero-parameter schema, the description bears the responsibility of explaining what the tool returns. It enumerates the key system attributes (firmware, model, branch, uptime, public IP, CPU/memory, hardware), providing sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and result. The tool is simple enough that this level of detail is complete.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds value by specifying the output fields, which is the relevant semantic context. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 explicitly states 'Get Firewalla system information' and enumerates specific fields (firmware, model, branch, uptime, public IP, CPU/memory, hardware), making it clear that this tool retrieves device-level system metrics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on network data like devices, flows, or statistics.

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 by the word 'Get' and the resource 'system information', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. The scope is self-evident—use when you need Firewalla system details—so usage is implied rather than clearly prescribed.

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