changedetection_systeminfo

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive semantics, so the description adds value by disclosing the response payload (version, watch count, uptime, queue fields) and hedging with 'when present'. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the remaining gap is minor for a read-only status endpoint.

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?

Three compact clauses front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint and return contents. Nothing is redundant relative to the name and 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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, which is the key missing structured information for a zero-parameter read tool. Only a brief statement of when the status matters for troubleshooting would make it 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly spends no words on parameter semantics and instead describes outputs.

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 ('Get instance status'), names the underlying endpoint, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings, which are all watch/tag/history operations, though the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a health/status check, but the description never says when to call it or points to alternatives such as changedetection_list_watches for watch counts.

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