bmc_configure

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the mapping and accumulation process, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting previous configurations), required permissions, or what happens on invalid values. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with sections (description, Args, Returns), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and clear.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, how to use it, and what parameters mean. However, it omits error handling and configuration persistence details.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It lists example values for counter (M1CNT, etc.) and event (CYCLECOUNT, etc.), adding context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify allowed formats or case sensitivity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Configure a BenchMark Counter to count a specific hardware event.' It specifies the action (configure), resource (BenchMark Counter), and distinguishes from siblings like bmc_read (which reads after halting).

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 a clear workflow: configure then read with bmc_read after halting. It implies when to use this tool (for configuration) and gives guidance on reading results, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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