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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool captures data and returns observations, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks explicit safety details, prerequisites (e.g., sigrok setup, hardware requirements), and possible side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. It avoids redundancy and every part contributes meaning, making it highly concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for the agent to fully understand how to use the tool. It does not explain parameter semantics, return format details (units, structure), or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameter details. The parameter names (driver, channel, samples, samplerate) are self-explanatory to some extent, but the absence of units, allowed values, or relationships means the agent gains no additional meaning from the description.

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 function: capturing the WS2812 data line via sigrok and returning measured pulse-width observations (T0H/T1H/...). The verb 'Capture' and specific resource (WS2812 data line) distinguish it from sibling tools like check_ws2812 which likely validate rather than capture raw data.

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 gives a clear context: use this when you need to capture WS2812 signals for pulse-width analysis. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the specific context (capture vs. check/judge) implies a distinct use case, earning a score slightly below 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and prerequisites. It reveals the combined capture-and-judge behavior but omits any mention of hardware requirements, permissions, or failure handling, leaving a significant transparency gap for a tool combining two operations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key actions and resource, with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity of a combined capture-and-judge tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required contract_path, the role of driver/channel/samples/samplerate, or the format of the judgment result, leaving major operational gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is fully responsible for explaining the five parameters, but it only mentions DShot600 and contract without detailing driver, channel, samples, samplerate, or contract_path. This leaves all parameters unspecified and does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it captures a live DShot600 ESC signal and judges it against a contract, combining two actions in one call. The specific verb+resource ('capture...AND judge...DShot600 ESC signal') distinguishes it from separate capture-only or judge-only sibling tools.

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 'in one call' phrasing implies it is used when both capture and judgment are needed at once, suggesting an alternative to separate operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like judge_contract, though the sibling context provides this implication.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading for N seconds and judging, but omits critical details such as blocking behavior, return format, pass/fail semantics, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a hardware-interfacing tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The core action ('Read a serial port') is front-loaded, and the compound purpose is communicated efficiently.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It fails to specify return values, error behavior, or how the contract 'judgment' is reported, leaving the agent without enough context for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies 'port', 'seconds', and 'contract_path' but completely ignores 'baud', which is a necessary serial configuration parameter. The partial coverage leaves the meaning of 'baud' ambiguous and the overall parameter semantics incomplete.

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 verb and resource: it 'Read[s] a serial port for N seconds' and 'judge[s] its log against a contract's expect/forbid patterns.' This distinguishes it from siblings like judge_serial (which likely only judges) by explicitly combining capture and judgment.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like judge_serial or capture_ws2812. 'Read AND judge' implies a combined use case, but no clear prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the combined operation (capture+judge) but does not disclose potential side effects, whether it blocks, or return format. Some transparency is present, but depth is lacking.

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 short sentences, immediately front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, conveying purpose and usage without fluff.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers its overall purpose. Missing are parameter prerequisites, contract format, return values, and any setup requirements, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameter names or meanings. Parameters like 'samples' and 'samplerate' lack units or context, and 'contract_path' is not explicitly connected to the contract mentioned in the description.

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 captures a live WS2812 signal and judges it against a contract in one call. This combines the functionality of sibling tools capture_ws2812 and judge_contract, making its purpose distinct and specific.

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 phrase 'The one-shot an agent reaches for' implies this is the preferred combined tool, suggesting it should be used when both capture and judgment are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use separate tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no hardware is touched (offline/replay operation) and lists the four output verdicts, which is meaningful beyond the schema. It says nothing about error behavior when the contract file is missing or malformed, or whether the verdicts are mutually exclusive per observation.

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 compact clauses with the outcome list front-loaded and the usage note appended; nothing is wasted. The arrow notation packs the return contract into a few tokens, though the second clause is slightly clipped in phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry everything, and it does not. The verdict vocabulary is covered, but the input contract (contract file format, observation object shape) is completely unspecified for a tool whose entire correctness depends on those two inputs matching.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'contract_path' is never clarified as a filesystem path or identifier, and the expected shape of 'observations' objects (timestamped samples? channel/value pairs?) is entirely unstated, leaving the agent to guess the input format.

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 names a specific verb ('Judge') and resource ('observations against a timing contract') and enumerates the four possible verdicts, so the agent knows exactly what comes out. It implicitly separates itself from hardware-capture siblings via 'No hardware', though it does not distinguish itself from judge_events or judge_serial, which look near-identical in shape.

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?

'use for replay or when an adapter already captured' gives a real condition for selecting this tool over the capture_*/check_* siblings. However, it never names an alternative explicitly and gives no guidance on when to prefer judge_events or judge_serial, which share the same judging verb.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the assertion kinds checked (when/require/within, forbid/while/before) and the event record shape. However, it says nothing about the outcome semantics: what happens on a violation, whether it is a pure read/verdict operation, or what permissions the contract file requires.

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 dense sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; the assertion list and event shape are packed into parentheticals efficiently. Slightly cryptic for readers unfamiliar with the assertion vocabulary.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should say more about the verdict/return shape and error behavior, which it does not. The input side is reasonably covered, but an agent calling this cannot predict what a result looks like.

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 0%, so the description's inline expansion of the events array (source, type, start_ns, end_ns, fields) is genuinely valuable and compensates for the empty items schema. It leaves contract_path completely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 (judge) and resource (decoded hardware events) and adds the contract's temporal assertion vocabulary, which pins down the operation precisely. It is distinguishable from judge_contract by scope (events vs. the contract itself), though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the siblings (judge_contract, list_contracts). The phrase 'decoded hardware events' hints at a pipeline stage, but the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool does not require hardware, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is simple with two string parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the purpose and usage context but does not specify the return value or output format, which could leave an agent uncertain about how to interpret the results.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description mentions 'serial log' and 'expect/forbid patterns', which gives partial meaning to the `log` and `contract_path` parameters, but it doesn't explain their format or relationship clearly.

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 function: judging a captured serial log against expect/forbid patterns. It also distinguishes itself from hardware-related tools by noting 'No hardware', making it stand out among siblings like capture_ws2812 and check_serial.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool: for replay or logs already captured, and states it is not for hardware. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like check_serial for live use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only, hardware-free nature ('No hardware.') and what the listing contains, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or whether results are static bundled data versus dynamically discovered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the returned fields, with the constraint ('No hardware.') placed last where it belongs. No filler.

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 zero-param listing tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain around what 'kinds' and 'capture adapter requirements' mean in practice.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List bundled contract templates') with an enumeration of returned fields (names, kinds, installed paths, capture adapter requirements). It is distinguishable from judge_contract, though the distinction is inferred from the verb rather than stated explicitly.

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 trailing 'No hardware.' implicitly tells the agent this call is safe without a device attached, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. judge_contract) for the contrasting case.

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