Local hardware readiness

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly labels the operation as a read and mentions using only local predicates and kernel state, implying non-destructive and self-contained behavior. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether results are aggregated or per-item, or any potential performance implications.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It lists the scope compactly and includes the technical constraint ('using only local Omarchy predicates and kernel state') without waste.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but leaves out key details: what exactly is returned (aggregate readiness, per-item status, booleans?), and how an agent should interpret the result. It also does not clarify the relationship to more granular sibling tools, which is relevant for correct usage.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist. It does not need to add anything beyond the schema, which is already trivially complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and lists the concrete resources it covers (battery/power, external-monitor, backlight, hybrid-GPU, hibernation readiness). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like battery_status or brightness_display, which focus on individual aspects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools that overlap (battery_status, powerprofiles_list, brightness_display, etc.), but the description does not mention any selection criteria or exclusions.

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