schema

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, so the description is not obligated to restate it. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the schema is generated from the actual parsing types and encodes semantic rules the grammar cannot express, which tells the agent this is authoritative rather than a hand-written reference.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the trigger for calling it. Every clause — authority, generation source, semantic-rule coverage — earns its place; there is no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing returns (JSON Schema vs. annotated YAML example) and the safety profile is already carried by annotations. It is essentially complete; only minor details like schema size or versioning are absent, which are not needed to invoke it correctly.

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 50% — the 'kind' enum has no inline description, but the description names all three valid values in prose. 'example' is defined in the schema and the description reinforces its effect ('with example=true, an annotated YAML example'), so both parameters carry meaning beyond the raw types.

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 resource with scope: the authoritative JSON Schema for the three openbaud knowledge formats (profile, command, workflow), plus the example=true mode. Nothing in the sibling list (list_ports, run_workflow, capture_*) overlaps, so an agent can identify this tool immediately without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit trigger — 'Call this before writing or modifying any YAML under devices/' — plus the reason (it is generated from the exact types that parse those files). It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative, but no sibling competes for this role, so the missing exclusion is low-cost.

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