wikijs_get_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that sensitive fields (dbHost, configFile, workingDirectory, hostname) are filtered out, which is important behavioral info. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the action 'Retrieve' implies reading. Still, a slight gap exists.

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 long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. No unnecessary wording.

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 output schema, the description compensates by listing included information types (version, database type, usage statistics) and noting filtered fields. This is sufficient for a simple read-only tool, though it could briefly mention the return format (e.g., JSON).

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 input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies since no additional parameter information is needed. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable.

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 retrieves 'Wiki.js system information including version, database type, and usage statistics' and notes it is 'useful for diagnostics.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on CRUD operations for pages, comments, and tags.

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 explicitly labels the tool as 'useful for diagnostics,' providing clear context for when to use it. While it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, the sibling tools are all different operations (creating, updating, deleting content), so the usage guidance is adequate.

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