recommend_hardware

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states it 'generates ranked hardware recommendations' without explaining if it is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., saving a plan), or what the output contains. The output schema exists but is not described in the tool description.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and detail. While it is front-loaded with the purpose, it fails to include necessary information like input requirements or output format, making it inadequate despite brevity.

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 tool's complexity (nested schema, no annotations, multiple sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output schema, does not clarify the role of 'payload', and provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 single parameter 'payload' is a complex object with no description in the tool description and 0% schema description coverage at the top level. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent without guidance on how to structure the input.

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's action ('Generate'), the resource ('ranked hardware recommendations'), and the context ('for an LLM fine-tuning planning request'). This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools which perform different functions like dumping market offers or validating requests.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'probe_market' or 'list_providers'. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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