get_system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it adds useful behavior: it names the Classic REST /stat/sysinfo endpoint, says the tool returns system info objects, and explains accepted host/site identity formats. It does not detail error behavior or auth requirements, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get'.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then endpoint source. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter GET with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter formats, and return content. It is mostly complete, though it does not describe the exact shape of the returned system info object or potential failure modes.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: host accepts console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format, and site accepts a site name or ID. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string type in the input schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('controller/console system info') and enumerates the returned fields (version, uptime, memory). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling stats tools like get_site_statistics and get_device_statistics by targeting the system/controller level.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need controller/console system-level version, uptime, or memory. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, even though many related stats tools exist among the siblings.

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