Connect SE050 hardware bridge

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses side effects ('opens a short-lived serial session; does not export private keys'), authentication requirements ('No SSX360_API_KEY required'), and return format ('Returns {ok, mode, reader_name, available?, error?}'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage rules, side effects, return format, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, full parameter coverage, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, side effects, authentication, return format, and parameter details. It is fully 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant value: reader_name includes platform examples and environment default; pin notes about env variable preference; timeout mentions default and use cases. This supplements the schema effectively.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Probe') and resource ('AP2 Vault Card / SE050 USB CDC hardware signing bridge'), with a specific purpose of checking availability. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'create_envelope' (emulated mode) and 'verify_envelope' (verification), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use ('before hardware signing pilots'), when-not-to-use ('do not use for everyday signing... Do not use for verification'), and alternatives ('use create_envelope... call verify_envelope... Prefer status'). This gives an agent clear decision criteria.

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