upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention an important limitation: 'upload does not accept --libraries,' and hints at the inputDir/buildPath relationship (skipping recompile). However, it does not describe side effects such as overwriting the board's flash or requiring the serial port to be free, which would be helpful for safe usage. The description offers partial transparency but leaves gaps.

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. The first sentence is a clear, front-loaded purpose. The second sentence is a precise usage tip. There is no fluff or repetition; every word earns its place. This is an exemplar of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: the action, the required workflow (compile first), and a critical constraint. The schema itself documents most parameters. The description might have mentioned return values or error states, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's strength, it is sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of 'inputDir' (pass the 'buildPath' from a prior compile) and clarifying that 'upload' does not take '--libraries'. This contextual information helps the agent understand parameter relationships and limitations, elevating the score above baseline.

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: 'Upload a sketch to a board on a serial port.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'compile' (which builds rather than uploads) and serial tools. It also introduces the key workflow relationship with 'compile', further differentiating it.

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 guidance: 'Prefer compile first with libraries/buildPath, then pass the same buildPath as inputDir (upload does not accept --libraries).' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, and even warns about a common pitfall (no --libraries parameter). This is far more than a vague recommendation.

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