flipper_nfc

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving behavioral ambiguity. The description adds that device error text is returned verbatim but does not disclose whether emulation or sending raw commands modifies device state or has side effects.

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: first states the tool's purpose, second provides operational guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only mentions error behavior (device error text verbatim). For a complex tool with multiple operations, it lacks detail on success output format or typical results, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter information, so it provides no added meaning beyond the schema. Score at baseline due to high schema coverage.

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 specifies the verb 'detect, dump, emulate and send' and the resource 'NFC'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like flipper_rfid or flipper_infrared by naming the technology.

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 advises running 'flipper_capabilities' if a command is rejected due to firmware variations, and notes that error text is returned verbatim. This gives actionable guidance but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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