coreinfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read-only inspection, but it does not explicitly confirm no mutation, does not mention the admin requirement common to Coreinfo, and gives no side-effect or performance context.

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?

Tightly structured: the capability sentence is front-loaded, the Sysinternals wrapper note is brief, and the return format is compact with no filler. Slightly more than minimal but every line is useful.

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 one-parameter read-only inspection tool with a return format given, the definition is close to sufficient - an agent knows what it gets back and how to call it. The missing usage context (when to use it, admin requirement) is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the single all_features parameter is fully documented in the schema ('default shows deltas'). The description adds nothing about this parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) plus a concrete, enumerated resource set (CPU topology, NUMA layout, cache sizes, feature flags). No sibling (pslist, rammap, listdlls, etc.) touches CPU topology, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus the many sibling diagnostics, nor any prerequisite such as needing elevated privileges (Coreinfo typically requires admin). It only describes what is returned, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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