acpi_interrupt_routing

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source (MADT interrupt source overrides) and the fields covered (GSI, pin, polarity, trigger mode), implying a read-only derived view, but it says nothing about prerequisites such as a loaded/valid MADT, behavior when no overrides exist, or whether IRQs without overrides are still listed.

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, no filler: the first states the mapping and its source, the second states its purpose. The key information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the semantic content of the result well. However, for a tool with a required input, zero annotation coverage, and no parameter documentation, leaving 'name' entirely undefined is a material completeness gap.

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 single required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description needed to explain what 'name' refers to (table name, file path, or machine identifier). It never mentions the parameter at all, leaving the only input completely 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Map every legacy ISA IRQ (0-15) to its GSI and I/O APIC pin, with polarity and trigger mode, from the MADT's interrupt source overrides.' That is far more precise than the sibling names suggest (dump, disassemble, table, tables), but it never names or contrasts an alternative, so the differentiation is inferred from subject matter rather than stated.

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?

'This is the table to program I/O APIC redirection entries from' implies the downstream use case and therefore when an agent would want this tool, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to use for raw MADT data or a full table dump.

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