System info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the exact information returned (version, OS, CPU, memory, counts) and implies it is a read-only operation. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but these are not expected for a system info tool.

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 covers purpose, content, and usage in a concise manner. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It tells the user exactly what to expect and when to use it.

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 coverage is 100% (empty). The description implicitly indicates no parameters are needed by stating what it summarizes. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter description is required.

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 summarizes Docker daemon details (engine version, host OS/architecture, CPU/memory, container/image counts) and explicitly ties it to answering 'what does this server look like?'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_containers or disk_usage.

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 provides a clear use-case: answering a system overview question. It lists the data returned but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it. However, the context signals and sibling tools make it clear this is a high-level info tool.

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