get_serial_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status arrays and single status, and mentions last_error and viewer_url fields. It does not mention destructive actions or authentication needs, but the read-only nature is implied. Slight omission of explicit safety guarantees.

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 well-structured with clear sections ([언제 호출], [무엇을 반환], [루프 단계]), each serving a distinct purpose. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no redundant sentences.

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 the simple tool (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides complete context: usage trigger, return behavior for both cases, error interpretation, and even links to viewer_url. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools.

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?

With only one parameter (port, optional) and 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the effect of omitting (returns all ports) vs specifying (returns a single port) the parameter. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: to check which board is connected when logs are not coming in, and to distinguish causes like port occupancy, unconnected, or unrecognized. It specifies the return behavior for both port unspecified and specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: call when logs are not incoming to verify board connection. It also gives actionable guidance on interpreting errors (e.g., if connected false with last_error occupancy, ask user to close other programs) and suggests directing users to viewer_url for manual log viewing.

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