Get system info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope (the fields it reports and what it does not report), but says nothing about response shape, caching/staleness, or auth requirements. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The content list is front-loaded and the sibling routing is placed immediately after it.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the essential job of telling the agent what comes back, which the schema and annotations do not provide. It stops short of describing the response structure or format, which would have made it fully 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 implies no input is needed and spends its words on output content instead.

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?

Enumerates the concrete fields returned (firmware, model, uptime, CPU load, memory, server version, boot time), which is more specific than a generic 'get system info'. It also differentiates itself from get_internet_status by name. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource and returned content are unambiguous.

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?

It routes the agent away from this tool for internet connection and external IP, naming get_internet_status as the alternative. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, but the field inventory plus the exclusion makes the intended use clear.

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