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. It describes what information is available (date, timezone, other context) but doesn't specify format, precision, or limitations. It mentions this is 'helpful context that AI assistants may not have access to' which hints at its utility, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first stating the purpose and scope, then providing clear usage guidelines. Every element serves a purpose with no redundant information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 read-only utility tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is available and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the format and scope of 'other helpful context' returned.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter with enum values and default. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get system information and utilities') and resources ('current date, timezone, and other helpful context'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all conversation-related) by focusing on system-level information rather than conversation data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need reference information for date filtering, time-based queries, or other system context.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by addressing a completely different domain (system utilities vs. conversation management).

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