System Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds extra context by revealing the specific mechanisms (systeminformation, sw_vers, sysctls, system_profiler) and the fact that no permission is required. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing useful behavioral insight.

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 two sentences, with the primary function front-loaded and supplemental details (sources, permission) included efficiently. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the types of data returned and the underlying commands. It does not describe the output format (e.g., object structure or value types), but the scope is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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. The description correctly implies this by not mentioning any inputs. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates the exact resources it covers (CPU, memory, disk, network, battery, graphics, macOS version, hardware sysctls, hardware model). This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_doctor or list_monitors.

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 when system information is needed by listing the various data categories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like system_doctor, nor does it mention any exclusions. The 'No permission required' note offers some context but does not substitute for explicit guidance.

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