judge_serial

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.