rtt_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the tool reads and the three facts it reports, and the 'Read' phrasing implies a non-destructive operation. However, it omits operational behavior such as whether a debug session or RTT connection must already exist, and what happens when the control block address is invalid or uninitialised — gaps an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first front-loads the operation and its three outputs; the second delivers the usage guidance and sibling contrast. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, informally describes the returned values, and gives the triggering scenario. Since no output schema exists, the enumeration of reported values partially compensates. The only real gap is prerequisites and error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the schema alone fully documents the single address parameter, including a concrete example ('0x20002050') and the JLINK_RTT_ADDR default. The description adds no parameter detail, but per the rubric the 100%-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') plus a specific resource ('SEGGER's RTT control block'), and enumerates exactly what the agent learns: initialisation state, bytes written by the firmware, and bytes collected by the probe. The closing clause explicitly distinguishes it from rtt_read, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 second sentence is an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use this when RTT is silent.' It also explains the diagnostic value — separating a quiet device from a probe that stopped collecting — and names rtt_read as the tool that cannot make this distinction. This is exactly the routing guidance the rubric asks for.

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