rtt_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions reading from an accumulated buffer but does not clarify whether data is consumed or cleared, what happens on multiple reads, or if there are any destructive side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the action and resource immediately. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter context. However, missing behavioral details (e.g., whether reading is destructive, thread safety) make it slightly incomplete. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a note 'This reads from the accumulated buffer' which adds context beyond the schema, but does not provide additional parameter-level detail.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'accumulated RTT data from the ring buffer'. It also provides context about the background monitor thread. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rtt_read_log or rtt_read_raw, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 includes 'Use this to get output from the target device' as a general guidance, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. No alternatives are mentioned, despite siblings like rtt_read_raw or rtt_read_log existing.

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