system_info

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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description's disclosure that it 'gets' information is consistent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as mentioning 'resource usage'. However, it does not specify what exactly is returned or any limitations (e.g., real-time vs cached data).

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 sentence plus an example, making it concise. However, the example listing 'installation guide' is not part of the stated purpose and could be misleading. The structure is adequate but not optimal.

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 tool claiming 'comprehensive' system information, the description lacks details on the scope of information (e.g., OS version, hardware specs, running services). There is no output schema, so the description should compensate but fails to fully describe the return value or usage context.

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 100% description coverage for its two parameters, so the schema itself provides clear meaning. The description repeats the 'category' parameter's purpose but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 states the tool retrieves system information including server details, tool categories, and resource usage. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive system information'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_device_info', which may have overlapping functionality.

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. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for more specific queries. The usage context is only implied by the general purpose.

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