get_hardware

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, performance implications, or return characteristics (e.g., whether results are paginated or sorted). For a simple read operation, this lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 7 words. It is concise and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning that the output is a list) without sacrificing brevity, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to understand the tool's core functionality. It does not explain the structure of hardware records, but that is covered by the output schema. Additional context comparing this tool to other list tools would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. As per guidelines, for 0 parameters the baseline is 4 because the description cannot add further meaning beyond indicating no inputs are required.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all hardware/gateways configured in Domoticz.' It specifies a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('hardware/gateways'), and the context ('configured in Domoticz') differentiates it from sibling tools like get_all_devices or get_scenes. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many 'get_*' sibling tools (e.g., get_all_devices, get_device, get_scenes) but the description does not explain the specific use case for hardware/gateways or mention any prerequisites or limitations. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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