set_rtt_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool sets a default channel for subsequent operations, which is a state change. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether a connection is needed), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting previous default), or error conditions. The behavioral coverage is minimal.

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, using a clear structure with a one-line summary, then Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (setting a single integer parameter) and the presence of sibling tools like read_rtt and write_rtt, the description covers the essential context. However, it lacks details about the output JSON structure (though no output schema is provided) and does not mention if the tool requires a prior connection or if it can fail. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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 provides only the type 'integer' for the channel parameter, with no description. The tool description adds meaningful context by specifying that it is a channel number in the range 0-15, which is not present in the schema. This adds significant value beyond the schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 sets the default RTT channel, including the specific verb 'set' and resource 'default RTT channel'. It mentions it affects subsequent RTT operations, which distinguishes it from other RTT tools like read_rtt and write_rtt. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings that might also affect state, but the purpose is clear.

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 implies when to use the tool: before subsequent RTT operations, by stating 'set the default channel for subsequent RTT operations'. It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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