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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey all behavioral context. It only says 'returns' a template, without disclosing whether it generates dynamically, what side effects (if any) occur, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 one concise sentence that immediately states the tool's core function. No filler or redundant content; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only resource. It lacks details about the exact output representation (file content vs. path), required input format, and any dependency on previously designed devices. For a tool with a single prompt parameter, this is insufficient.

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 single parameter 'prompt' has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The mention of '言葉から設計した' implies prompt is a natural-language description of the device, which adds some meaning, but it does not specify expected language, length, or examples.

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 states the tool returns an Arduino firmware template (.ino) for a device designed from natural language, using a clear verb ('返す') and resource ('Arduinoファーム雛形'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like generate_device, and the phrase '言葉から設計した' is slightly indirect about the prompt-based generation.

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?

No information is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_* tools (e.g., get_netlist, get_bom_csv). It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a device must already be designed, nor suggest alternatives.

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