acpi_find

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that answers are derived from 'the tables' and scopes what topics are covered, which is useful, but it never states whether tables must be loaded via acpi_load beforehand, what happens when a topic is unsupported, or whether the answer is synthesized versus looked up.

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?

Two sentences, with the capability statement front-loaded before the supported-topic enumeration. The topic list is long but each entry earns its place by expanding the usable question space; no filler wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a tool with no annotations, an undocumented required 'name' parameter, and unclear dependency on loaded tables, the description leaves material gaps an agent would need to close by trial.

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 0% — both parameters are bare titles. The description adds real meaning to 'question' by framing it as an OS-developer question and enumerating supported topics, but says nothing about what 'name' refers to (a table signature? a topic name? free text?). One of two required parameters remains fully unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: answer an OS-developer question about ACPI tables, returning exact ports, addresses and values. The enumerated topic list makes the scope concrete and differentiates it from raw-table siblings like acpi_dump or acpi_tables, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'Understands: shutdown / power off, reset / reboot, hpet, pci config / ecam...' list functions as implicit routing guidance — an agent can match its question to a listed topic. However, there is no explicit when-not to use it, no mention of prerequisites such as tables being loaded first, and no named alternative for raw table access.

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