unlock_recover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is destructive, the confirm parameter controls execution, and unsupported recover_mode causes deterministic failure. This adds useful safety context, though it does not detail post-execution board state.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value. The main action is first, followed by key behaviors. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 single-parameter tool with output schema, the description adequately covers parameter behavior and failure modes. It addresses board config validation but does not explain potential success outcomes or return values. Still, it is fairly complete given the simplicity.

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 schema provides only a default for 'confirm' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds essential meaning: when confirm is false, the tool refuses without action; it must be true to proceed. This significantly supplements 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 executes the recover/unlock path for a connected board, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other hardware operations like connect, disconnect, or flash.

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 context about destructive nature and parameter behavior but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies this is for recovery/unlock scenarios but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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