nanokvm_info

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

The description states that it 'Returns' a dictionary with device info, which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, permissions, or data freshness. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but provides only basic transparency.

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 and well-structured: a single opening sentence stating the action followed by a brief return-value summary. 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 info tool without an output schema, the description provides adequate context by naming the return type (dictionary) and example fields (IP, firmware version). However, 'etc.' is somewhat vague, and it doesn't mention any potential caveats like network location or permissions.

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 description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already demonstrates.

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 and resource: 'Get NanoKVM device information' with example fields (IP, firmware version), making the core purpose clear. It is not explicitly differentiated from the sibling tool 'nanokvm_hardware', but the focus on device-level info distinguishes it enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nanokvm_hardware or nanokvm_led_status. No exclusions or recommended contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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