hardware_power

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuinely useful negative capability: DSM does not report whether a disk is currently spun down. That tells the agent not to chase a value that will never be returned, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no padding: a dense feature inventory followed by the caveat. It is front-loaded on scope, and the trailing limitation sentence earns its place, though the comma-separated inventory is slightly harder to scan than a structured list.

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?

An output schema exists, so the feature enumeration is arguably redundant with the return structure and the description is not obligated to explain return values. What is missing for an aggregating multi-section tool is any selection guidance and any parameter documentation, leaving it adequate but thin.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter wake_events is never named or explained. The phrase 'recent disk wake-ups from the system log' gestures at the parameter's subject but gives no hint that it is a count, that it defaults to 10, or that 0 is the floor — an agent cannot tell whether 0 means 'none' or 'unbounded'.

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 enumerates the concrete resources covered (hibernation timers, fan mode, power schedule, WoL, UPS status), which makes the tool's domain clear and separates it from siblings like storage_status and system_utilization. It never states a verb ('retrieves'/'sets'), so the agent has to infer this is a read, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named; the agent is not told whether this belongs alongside storage_status or system_utilization. The only usage-adjacent content is the caveat that DSM does not report whether a disk is spun down, which is a scope limitation rather than a selection cue.

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