get_hardware

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly conveys a non-mutating operation through 'List' and specifies the data returned, though it does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an open project or operational caveats.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action before specifying the hierarchical contents. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only listing tool, the description provides a solid high-level account of the return content, including the topology tree, part numbers, versions, and addresses. It omits an explicit prerequisite like needing an open project, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the core invocation is still clear.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the zero-parameter baseline this is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('full hardware configuration') and enumerates the exact contents: CPU plus the bus → drop → rack → module tree with part numbers, versions and topological addresses. This is sufficiently distinct from hardware mutation siblings like add_drop or replace_rack.

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 implies use for reading the complete hardware inventory, and the read-only 'List' verb makes it distinguishable from mutation tools, but it never explicitly states when to use it over alternatives or what not to use it for. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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