detect_hardware

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the exact hardware fields returned, GPU detection method (nvidia-smi, Metal/MPS), and that diskFreeGB is homedir partition. No contradictions, and no side effects are implied (likely none).

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, well-structured sentence that lists return fields and usage context. Every part adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and why it's used. It is complete for an agent to understand its purpose and when to invoke it.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is empty.

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 explicitly states the tool returns system hardware info with a specific list of fields (totalRAM, freeRAM, cpuModel, etc.), and ties it to use cases (Doctor checks, model-selection). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly unrelated.

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 says the tool is used by Doctor checks and model-selection decisions, giving clear context. It also explains when GPU info is non-null (NVIDIA vs Apple Silicon), implying appropriate usage conditions. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient.

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