flipper_rfid

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

While annotations indicate the tool is neither read-only nor destructive, the description adds value by disclosing that subcommand syntax varies between firmware versions and that device error text is returned verbatim. This aids in understanding expected behavior.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential usage guidance without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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 complexity (multiple subcommands, firmware variations) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main operations and a critical troubleshooting tip. It could mention return format or success/failure indicators but is sufficient.

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 already describes parameters with 75% coverage (action, port, args, timeout have descriptions). The description does not add new parameter details beyond restating that action is a subcommand, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 that the tool is for 125kHz RFID operations including read, write, and emulate. It distinguishes from other tools like flipper_nfc (different frequency) and flipper_ibutton (different technology) by explicitly mentioning the frequency.

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 practical guidance on handling subcommand syntax variations by advising to run flipper_capabilities and noting that error text is returned verbatim. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools but gives clear context for usage.

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