flipper_ibutton

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which the description echoes. Beyond annotations, the description reveals that subcommand syntax varies by firmware and that error text is returned verbatim, adding useful context about compatibility and error handling.

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 with no redundant content. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a critical usage note. Every sentence adds value.

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 description does not explain what the tool returns on success or failure (beyond error text). Given the absence of an output schema, this is a gap. However, it does mention error handling and version variability, which partially compensates. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra detail for individual parameters (e.g., what 'args' accepts) and does not compensate for the undocumented parameter. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 resource ('iButton / 1-Wire keys') and the actions ('read, write and emulate'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flipper_rfid or flipper_subghz by specifying the exact protocol and operations.

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 guidance on what to do if a command fails ('run flipper_capabilities'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like flipper_nfc or flipper_rfid. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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