get_hardware_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently lists the values returned (CPU cores, RAM, GPU, tier, LLM model config), indicating a read-only operation. It does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, or data freshness, but the list is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the returned data. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns. It lists the components but could be more complete by mentioning the format (e.g., object with fields) or whether it returns real-time data. However, for a simple read tool, it is adequate.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter information. However, the description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 'Get' and clearly names the resource 'hardware auto-detection', listing the components (CPU cores, RAM, GPU, tier, LLM model config). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools that focus on entities, messages, stats, etc.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools shows they are all in different domains (e.g., entity relationships, message streams, statistics), so the usage is implied by the unique hardware focus. Still, no specific when-not or prerequisite information is given.

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