Get system information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful context by listing the specific categories of system information returned. It is consistent with the annotation and gives the agent a clear picture of the read-only nature of the operation.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then provides specific examples of the returned information. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description, along with the schema and annotations, gives the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. An output schema is present, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. The only minor gap—explicit usage guidance—is covered by the implied scope of 'basic system information.'

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 already fully documents the sole host parameter, including its type, default, and purpose ('Remote host to connect to via SSH'). With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('basic system information'), and enumerates concrete fields: operating system, distribution, kernel version, uptime, and last boot time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cpu_information or get_network_interfaces, which cover more specialized areas.

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 phrasing 'basic system information' implies this tool is appropriate when broad OS-level details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over siblings or when to avoid it. No alternative tools or exclusionary conditions are mentioned, leaving usage context only implied.

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