Self-test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Never changes a setting' while adding real behavioral detail: a bad-checksum frame is ignored rather than aborting the test. It does not say how long the run may take or whether a failure is reported as a result or an error, which matters for a multi-check probe.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only framing, then the checklist, then the non-mutation guarantee. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated.

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, the description must convey behavior, and it does a good job of listing the checks and the bad-frame tolerance. The remaining gap is that it never indicates the shape of the outcome (per-check pass/fail versus a single verdict), which an agent would want before parsing results.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'max_wall' parameter already documents its range and 30 s default, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the time limit or what happens when it is exceeded, which is the baseline case for fully documented parameters.

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 names the resource and enumerates exactly what is verified (port, status replies, checksums, latency, voltage/temperature plausibility, power = V x I), so an agent knows this is a diagnostic routine rather than a status read. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'status' tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this versus the closely related 'status' or 'watch' tools; the only implied guidance comes from the word 'checks'. The closing 'Never changes a setting' is a safety note rather than a usage rule, so the agent is left to infer selection criteria.

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