micropython_read_until

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal useful behavior – that it blocks waiting up to `timeout` seconds, reads at most `max_bytes`, and reports `matched`/`error` – but omits prerequisites (active connection), whether output is lost or partial on timeout, and streaming semantics.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by cleanly separated Args and Returns sections. No filler, though the return-value block partly duplicates the output schema.

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?

For a blocking read with a 0%-covered parameter schema, the description adequately covers purpose, all three params, and expected outputs. Since an output schema already exists, its return documentation is surplus but harmless, and the definition is complete enough to call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies `pattern` is a plain substring not a regex, `timeout` is max waiting seconds, and `max_bytes` is the byte cap. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('接続中のデバイス出力を...読み取る') plus a distinctive condition ('指定文字列が現れるまで'), which differentiates it from plain reads like micropython_read_stream. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (read_stream, read_lines, read_file, exec, etc.). The reader must infer the use case (blocking wait for a marker) entirely from the purpose line.

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