gb_mbc_info

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 states what the tool summarizes but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it's read-only), error behavior for unknown mapper names, or any limitations. It also doesn't mention how the optional 'include_text' flag affects output, beyond what the schema already says. For a read-style tool, this is a notable gap.

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: the first fronts the core purpose, the second clarifies what 'quirks' means with concrete examples. There is zero fluff, and all information is relevant. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it conveys the scope of the summary. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid names), the nature of the output (text, structured), and does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only. Given the absence of annotations, these are gaps that could affect agent decision-making.

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 100%, so both parameters ('name' and 'include_text') are already described. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely reiterates the content type. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds no extra value.

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 verb 'Summarise' and the resource 'a mapper', and enumerates what it covers: mapped memory ranges, control registers, and quirks. It also gives concrete examples of quirks, which distinguishes it from siblings like gb_memory_map or gb_lookup_register. An agent can immediately tell this tool is about per-MBC details.

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 it (when you need info about a specific MBC) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no 'use X instead for Y' guidance, so the agent must infer from the name and sibling list. This is implied usage rather than explicit direction.

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