List Hardware Profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully notes that hypothetical profiles are included and that 'local' appears only if detectable, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not state side effects, permissions, or other operational traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the scope of the returned 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, empty input schema, and existing output schema, the description is largely complete for invocation. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to detect_hardware, which affects usage rather than core completeness.

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 and no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent or misdescribe parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list hardware profiles. It also clarifies that configured and hypothetical profiles are included and that 'local' may appear if detectable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling detect_hardware tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_hardware. The description implies it is for listing profiles, but it does not state when to choose it over detection or other sibling tools.

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