get_sys_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. It states the tool runs a 'sys' command, hinting at execution behavior, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with system 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, efficient sentence that clearly states the purpose without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse 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?

Given the tool likely returns system info, the presence of an output schema helps, but the description lacks context on complexity, such as what specific info is retrieved or how it differs from siblings. With no annotations and minimal description, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding usage.

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 one parameter (session_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't mention parameters at all. Since there are no parameters documented in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info but also doesn't add any value regarding parameters.

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 states the tool gets system info and mentions it runs a 'sys' command, which clarifies the action and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_crash_dumps' or 'run_crash_command', which might also provide system-related information, leaving the scope vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it's a 'convenience tool', implying it might be simpler or faster, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings like 'run_drgn_command' for deeper system analysis.

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