get_hardware_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions remote execution via SSH with optional/required parameters, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool that likely involves system access, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args into the main flow, but it's well-structured and efficient.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does a decent job. It covers parameter semantics well and states the purpose clearly. However, for a tool that likely involves system interrogation, it lacks context on permissions, safety, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters in the Args section: 'host' is for remote SSH connection (optional, defaults to local), and 'username' is required if host is provided. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, explaining the relationship between parameters. With 2 parameters fully documented in description, it earns a high score.

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 purpose: 'Get hardware information including CPU architecture, PCI devices, USB devices, and memory hardware.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('hardware information') with concrete examples. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_cpu_info or get_memory_info, which appear to be more specific subsets.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_cpu_info or get_memory_info, nor does it explain if this is a comprehensive hardware overview versus more specific tools. The only usage context is about remote vs. local execution in the Args section, not tool selection.

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