Get hardware information

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read-only nature, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds some context by naming DMI as a data source, which hints at underlying behavior. It does not mention potential privilege requirements for DMI or how the optional host parameter affects behavior, but annotations lower the burden.

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 sentence that is mostly efficient and front-loads the action and subject. Minor redundancy exists in the phrase 'hardware information such as ... hardware information from DMI', which could be tightened, but overall it is concise.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, so little is missing on those fronts. However, the description does not address the overlapping sibling tools or clarify boundaries (e.g., CPU-specific vs. general hardware inventory), leaving an agent to guess which tool fits a given request. This gap in routing guidance prevents a higher score.

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% — the only parameter, 'host', already has a clear schema description ('Remote host to connect to via SSH'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with 'hardware information' as the resource, and lists concrete examples (CPU details, PCI devices, USB devices, DMI). This clearly communicates the tool's scope and differentiates it from file/process/network tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from system/cpu/memory sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of overlapping siblings such as get_cpu_information, get_memory_information, or get_system_information. An agent must infer usage context from examples alone; no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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