get_hardware_bus_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the underlying commands (lspci/lsusb with sysfs fallback), and error behavior ('if both fail the error goes in the errors field'), adding significant transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Three succinct sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function, method/error handling, and usage guidance. No filler or redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (as indicated), the description sufficiently covers purpose, method, error handling, and use case. The presence of an output schema means return values are already documented, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 100% for the single 'search' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's mention of filtering by fields, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the verb 'Lists' and specific resources 'PCI and USB devices detected on the system.' It is distinct from sibling tools like get_cpu_info or get_disk_info, uniquely covering hardware bus devices.

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 description provides an explicit use case: 'Use to identify network cards, audio interfaces, and expansion cards for driver troubleshooting.' While it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear and there are no overlapping siblings that would require differentiation.

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