get_hardware

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description owes nothing there. The description's real contribution is enumerating the returned fields, which matters because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about whether values are a live snapshot, how expensive the call is, or how it relates to the specialized sibling readers.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the 'Hardware:' label followed by the enumerated sub-resources. The parenthetical lists are compact and each item earns its place as return-value documentation, though the fragment style is terse rather than instructive.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered read tool, the description does the heavy lifting of documenting return content in the absence of an output schema, which is the main thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with get_cpu and get_memory, already reflected in the usage score.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object, consistent with the parameterless description.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates its contents precisely (processor model/cores/caches/clocks/features/virtualisation, board and BIOS, memory modules with size/speed/maker/part number, core topology), so an agent knows exactly what data this returns. It stops short of a clear verb and never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like get_cpu and get_memory, which cover portions of the same ground.

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 guidance at all: no statement of when to prefer this aggregate hardware call over the narrower get_cpu or get_memory, and no guidance on when it is unnecessary. The sibling list makes this omission consequential, since a naive agent may call this and get_cpu redundantly.

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