lookup_hardware

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes modes but gives no information about side effects, data sources, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences. No unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place by stating the tool's purpose and listing modes with brief clarifications. Extremely concise.

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?

The description explains the tool's function and modes adequately, but given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, it could benefit from details about return values, parameter interactions, or examples. It is minimally 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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by mapping parameters to modes (e.g., 'hardware_id' for lookup, 'use_case' for recommend), providing a high-level understanding beyond individual field descriptions.

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 it is a unified pentest hardware lookup tool and lists four specific modes: lookup, search, recommend, compare. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific wireless technologies or attacks.

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 lists the modes but does not explicitly guide when to use each mode or when to prefer sibling tools. Usage context is implied but not stated, leaving room for ambiguity.

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