info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the '(read-only)' tag is partly redundant, but the description goes further by disclosing what the payload contains (host/driver plus an info block with model, vendor, firmware, hardware) and that the appliance vs. managed system distinction depends on whether it is a PiKVM/GLKVM or BMC. It does not cover error behavior, auth/profile resolution, or the cost of the call, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and the sibling-routing exclusions are front-loaded, and every clause does work. The parenthetical about PiKVM/GLKVM vs. BMC is useful but slightly expands the block; overall efficient rather than padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does so concretely (host, driver, info block fields, appliance vs. managed-system semantics). Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage on the single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Only one optional parameter (profile) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the profile lookup and the default fallback. The description adds nothing about profile selection, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('identify the device and the system behind it') and immediately names the shape of the answer (host/driver plus the driver's info block). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling informational tools (healthcheck, capabilities, power_state), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('use it to confirm what you are talking to') followed by three named exclusions that each point at the right alternative: safety → healthcheck, capabilities → capabilities, power → power_state. This is a textbook when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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