suspend_peripheral

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

The description discloses how the peripheral responds to CPU halt for each mode ('hard', 'soft', 'none'), which is crucial behavioral information. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so effectively. It could mention that the CPU must be halted or other side effects, but the core behavior is clear.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence overview followed by clear bullet-style parameter explanations. Every sentence is informative and no unnecessary text. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, then details.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (confirmation), the description covers purpose and parameters well. It lacks information about error conditions, requirements (e.g., debugger state), and potential side effects, but for a peripheral configuration tool it is mostly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'peripheral' with example names, and 'suspend_mode' with each possible value and its exact behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 suspend mode for a specific peripheral module.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the explanation of the three suspend modes distinguishes it from generic tools. However, there is a sibling 'set_peripheral_suspend' that may overlap, but the description here is self-contained and clear.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_peripheral_suspend'. There is no statement of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it. The parameter documentation helps with usage but not selection.

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