matomo_get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'get' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this might be a heavy operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions. The structure is front-loaded with the core function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and the description's minimal content, this is incomplete for effective use. While it's a simple read operation with no parameters, the description doesn't explain what 'system information' includes, how results are structured, or any operational constraints. For a tool in a family with multiple get operations, more context is needed to distinguish its role.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, and the description doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist.

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 'Lấy thông tin hệ thống Matomo' (Get Matomo system information) states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('Matomo system information'), establishing the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'matomo_get_site' or 'matomo_get_sites' - it's unclear what specific 'system information' means versus site-specific data. The description is functional but vague about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'matomo_get_site', 'matomo_get_sites', and 'matomo_get_visits_summary', there's no indication whether this tool provides complementary system-level data or overlaps with other get operations. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is mentioned.

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