get_bios_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific data types (token names, class names, current values) and implies it's a read-only operation by linking to 'set_bios_setting'. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all current BIOS token values') and follows with essential details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the purpose, usage context, and output semantics. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential behavioral aspects like error cases or data format, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates this 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the output semantics ('Returns token names, class names, and current values'), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. This goes beyond the schema, providing context on what the tool yields.

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 specific action ('Get all current BIOS token values') and resource ('BIOS token values'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_bios_setting' (write operation) and other 'get_' tools that fetch different data types (e.g., 'get_event_log', 'get_firmware_versions'). It explicitly mentions what is returned ('token names, class names, and current values'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs. alternatives by mentioning 'needed for set_bios_setting', indicating it should be used to retrieve current values before making changes with the sibling tool. This provides clear guidance on its role in a workflow, distinguishing it from other 'get_' tools that serve different purposes.

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