lookup_beep_code

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

Discloses that it returns None when no match is found, explains the difference between BIOS types, and notes that modern boards may not have a speaker. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does so effectively.

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 detailed yet efficient, with a clear structure: purpose, parameter constraints, pattern examples, and return behavior. It avoids unnecessary fluff while covering all essential 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 an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return values, but it still mentions the None case, which is useful. It also covers edge cases like modern boards without speakers, making the context complete enough 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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the description fully explains both parameters: pattern is free text with examples, and bios_type is constrained to three valid values. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool looks up beep patterns against real BIOS beep-code tables. It specifies the resource (beep-code tables) and the action (lookup), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool diagnose_symptoms by focusing on beep-code lookup.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on required inputs (bios_type must be one of the listed values, pattern format with examples) and warns about potential pitfalls (different tables for different BIOS types). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool, but the usage is clear enough.

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