Detect Hardware

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well to state the return shape (facts plus a profile with id 'local') and the failure mode (a note when detection is impossible, e.g. in a Linux container), but it leaves open whether a profile is persisted or registered as a side effect and whether the call is safe to repeat.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the return contract. No filler, and the failure case is attached to the sentence it qualifies.

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 description is not obligated to spell out return fields, yet it still summarizes them alongside the degraded-result case. The only real gap is the missing side-effect/idempotency note for a tool that appears to produce a persisted 'local' profile.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add. It correctly implies a parameterless call by framing detection as reading the local machine.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (detect the local Mac) and enumerates the exact facts gathered: chip, unified memory, GPU wired limit. That is far more precise than the title alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like list_hardware_profiles, so an agent must infer that this one probes the live machine rather than reading stored profiles.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs the current machine's specs. The parenthetical about a Linux container is a useful precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to list_hardware_profiles as the fallback when detection fails.

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