board_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the output fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, timeout behavior, or any side effects. The description is purely output-oriented without addressing safety or interaction with the device.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key output categories and clearly referencing the parameter. No wasted words or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description partially fulfills the need to explain return values by listing the fields. However, it lacks structure/format details, error handling, and edge cases (e.g., what happens if no board is connected). It is adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by indicating that 'port' is the target device whose info is retrieved, and it clarifies what data will be returned for that port. This adds meaning beyond the minimal 'Port' title in the schema, though it doesn't provide format or example values.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving board information (chip family, flash size, MAC address, MicroPython version) for a specified port. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_ports, flash_firmware, and fs_* operations, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing a connected device or a valid port. The only implied context is that it operates on a 'port', but this is also the parameter name and schema title, adding no practical guidance.

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