get_chip_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return behavior (chip stepping, device variant, CPU configuration) and implicitly indicates it's a read-only operation. Lacks explicit safety or side-effect statements, but sufficient for a non-destructive tool.

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?

Extremely concise: front-loaded with purpose, followed by return details and use case. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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?

Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and why to use it. No gaps remain.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining return semantics, which indirectly clarifies that no input is needed. Baseline 3, but the description effectively communicates the tool's behavior.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detected chip/device information'. It lists specific return items (chip stepping, device variant, CPU configuration) and suggests use case (verifying correct CPU is selected). It distinguishes from sibling 'detect_cpu' by focusing on already detected info.

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?

Explicitly states usefulness for verifying correct CPU selection, giving context for when to use. However, no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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