get_hardware

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a tree structure with part numbers, versions, and addresses, and implies no side effects for a 'get' tool. Good, but could mention permissions or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence, well-structured, no fluff. Lists all key elements efficiently.

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?

No output schema, but description detailed enough to understand return values. For a simple listing tool, it is adequately complete.

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 (empty schema, 100% coverage). Description adds no parameter info needed. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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 tool lists the full hardware configuration including CPU, bus-drop-rack-module tree, part numbers, versions, and topological addresses. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_project_structure or get_dtm_* by specifying the hardware focus.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies it's for overall hardware tree, but does not mention exclusions or compare to other listing tools. Score 3 as usage is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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