serial_send_break

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral intent (sending a break signal for interruption/debugging) but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or response behavior. It does not mention if this is a read-only or destructive operation, though 'send' implies a write action.

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 concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and immediately providing usage context. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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's moderate complexity (a write operation with two parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or what happens after sending the break. It meets minimum viability 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (connection_id and duration). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why duration matters or how break signals work. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Send a serial break signal') and the target resource ('U-Boot, debug modes'), distinguishing it from siblings like serial_send or serial_set_dtr. It explicitly mentions the purpose of interrupting or entering modes, which is more specific than just the tool name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Used to interrupt U-Boot, enter debug modes'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage in specific debugging scenarios without detailing prerequisites like needing an active connection first.

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