Capture a complete device state after a crash by collecting CPU registers, fault status, recent RTT output, and stack dump to diagnose embedded system failures.
Capture complete device state: CPU registers (compact), fault status, recent RTT output, and stack dump.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rttLines | No | RTT lines to include (default 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses what is captured but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it halts the device), required device state, or performance impact. With no annotations, it carries the full burden but only partially meets it.
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?
Single sentence with verb upfront, lists key elements concisely. No superfluous words; every part contributes to understanding.
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?
Covers the main purpose and parameters adequately given the tool's complexity. Lacks details on output format or 'compact' register representation, but sufficient for basic use.
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 description coverage is 100% (rttLines defined with min, max, default). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 specifies the action ('Capture'), the resource ('complete device state'), and lists included components (registers, fault status, RTT output, stack dump). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_registers' or 'gdb_backtrace' which have narrower scope.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for minimal debugging vs. detailed analysis). The description implies a comprehensive snapshot but does not define scenarios or state 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.