get_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'info' and the read-only nature of the listed fields strongly imply a non-destructive query, though it does not explicitly confirm read-only status or mention failure modes.

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 a single, compact line that front-loads the tool category ('OMV/host info') and then provides a colon-separated list of returned fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-parameter tool without an output schema, the field list is sufficient to convey the essential return values. It does not specify units or formats, but the description is complete enough for a basic system-info retrieval tool.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by listing the output fields, but this is not parameter-related. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning OMV/host information and enumerates specific fields (hostname, OMV version, kernel, CPU, memory, uptime, load). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_info or network_info, which target narrower subdomains.

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 field list implies this is the general system overview tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools or any exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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