hw_object

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it defaults to the newest revision unless revision is supplied, returns sub-index details, and changes shape with sub/subitems for a single CoE sub-index.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the dense semicolon-separated format is information-rich with little waste. It is slightly repetitive around enum/enumeration text and could be structured more readably.

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 do not need full explanation in the description. The description still provides enough object-detail context and parameter guidance for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, with only minor revision-format ambiguity remaining.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly documents index formats and the exact device type, though it only briefly says 'newest revision unless revision' without explaining accepted revision formats.

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 clearly identifies the resource as one CoE object of a device from its ESI and lists the detailed contents returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as hw_module or hw_lookup, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explains parameter notation and the default revision behavior, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no routing guidance among the many hardware-related siblings.

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