device_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return values but does not disclose potential side effects, required connection state, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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: first states action and tool, second lists return contents. No filler, efficient, and front-loaded with key information.

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?

Adequate for a simple get-info tool with no parameters and no output schema. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must have a connected device, may need set_device first) and does not mention if a debug session is required.

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?

There are zero parameters (schema coverage 100% with empty properties). The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and no compensation is needed.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'connected device info via SEGGER J-Link', and lists specific return values (probe type, target CPU, register summary). Distinguishes itself from siblings like read_register or get_config by focusing on device-level info.

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?

Implies usage for retrieving device information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_registers or get_config. No exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions mentioned.

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