nanokvm_hardware

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns a dictionary with hardware details, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, has no side effects, or note any permissions or system impact. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Returns:' line adds a clear output expectation. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and return type. However, given the existence of the sibling 'nanokvm_info' and the lack of an output schema, the description does not fully disambiguate the tool or provide enough detail about what 'hardware information' includes.

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, so the description does not need to explain them. The schema confirms no parameters, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('Get NanoKVM hardware information') with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from most siblings (power, mount_iso, send_key, etc.) but not from 'nanokvm_info', which likely also provides information about the device.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nanokvm_info'. The description does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool should be preferred.

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