info

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

The description discloses a significant behavioral trait: it stops the currently running program. This is beyond what annotations provide (none are given). It also lists the exact data returned, which helps the agent anticipate the output. However, it doesn't mention whether the stop is graceful, whether it can be resumed, or if there are any side effects beyond stopping the program.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with 'One-call board fact sheet' and then lists the specific data points. The critical warning about stopping the program is placed at the end, which is a slight issue, but the overall length is appropriate and every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent what data it will receive and warns about the side effect. The only gap is that it doesn't specify the format of the output (e.g., JSON, text) or whether the program stop is reversible, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The description fully compensates by explaining what the tool does and what it returns. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that by being self-contained.

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 tool's function: it provides a one-call board fact sheet with specific data points (firmware, board name, CPU MHz, RAM, flash, unique id, Wi-Fi state, root files). It also explicitly notes a side effect: 'Stops the program currently running.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'status' or 'info' by specifying the exact resource and content.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a quick board overview. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the detailed list of what it returns makes the usage context clear. The side-effect warning ('Stops the program currently running') is a critical usage guideline, though it could be more explicit about avoiding it while a program is running.

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