acpi_table

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden; "decode" and "explain" imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, but that is not stated explicitly. It adds interpretive value ("explain what it means for an OS") and the output schema covers return values, but permissions, error behavior on unknown signatures, and any access requirements go unmentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then two compact clarifications for the signature and index inputs. The long signature enumeration earns its space given 0% schema coverage, though it could be trimmed slightly rather than spelling out every pair.

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-value explanation is not needed, and the signature/index semantics are covered. Remaining gaps for a 3-param tool are the unexplained name parameter and the unresolved overlap with acpi_dump/acpi_disassemble, which an agent must guess about.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for two of three params: the signature field is illustrated with concrete values (FACP/FADT, APIC/MADT, HPET, MCFG, DSDT, SSDT, etc.) and index is explained as the duplicate selector with a concrete example. The name parameter is left entirely undefined and its relationship to signature is unclear.

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?

"Decode one table and explain what it means for an OS" gives a specific verb (decode) and resource (a single ACPI table), so the agent can tell this apart from a plural listing tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as acpi_dump or acpi_disassemble, which likely also surface table content, leaving real ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With siblings like acpi_dump, acpi_disassemble and acpi_tables present, the description should say what selects this tool over them, but it offers nothing beyond a bare purpose statement.

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