get_power_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. It does not mention whether the tool requires administrative privileges, has side effects, or is read-only. The implicit 'get' nature suggests read-only, but explicit confirmation is missing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes an additional sentence about common settings that, while informative, could be seen as tangential. It is reasonably concise but could be tighter by moving non-essential context to a note.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter. It mentions 'long output' for the 'all' option, preparing the user. No further details about return values are needed. For a simple read-only tool, this is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 0% coverage with no parameter descriptions, but the tool description fully compensates by listing valid values for the 'section' parameter ('processor, pcie, disk, display, sleep, usb, graphics') and explaining the 'all' option. This provides clear guidance beyond the default and schema.

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 retrieves the active power plan and details of one of its subgroups. It lists specific subgroups and common problematic settings, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_system_overview or get_gpu_info by focusing on power configuration.

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 usage for diagnosing performance issues related to power settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no comparison to sibling tools like get_performance_snapshot or get_system_overview.

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