check_ws2812

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.