set_rtt_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the consequence of not setting the address and notes it is a runtime action, but it does not describe side effects, persistence, or whether the setting affects the current session only. 'Mirrors set_device' is a useful hint but not a full behavioral explanation.

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 concise, with each sentence earning its place: a clear statement of purpose, a consequence that justifies importance, and a short cross-reference to a sibling tool. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 configuration tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the parameter's meaning, explains why the tool is needed, and gives a usage context. It could mention whether the setting is volatile or persists across sessions, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as a hex address with an example. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond naming the symbol and control block, so it does not significantly exceed what the schema already documents. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: telling the server the runtime location of the firmware's RTT control block, specifically the _SEGGER_RTT symbol. This is a specific verb plus resource and is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like rtt_search or rtt_connect.

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 valuable context about when this tool matters: 'Without it RTT cannot be recovered after a reset or flash.' This implies the tool should be used after such events, making the usage scenario clear. It does not, however, explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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