read_freertos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what each mode actually retrieves (TCB pointers, names/priorities/stack, heap_4/5 usage), which is not inferable from the annotations or schema.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary verb and the mode enumeration front-loaded; every parenthetical clause maps to a real parameter value and none is filler. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so for each mode. It omits only secondary details such as the exact output shape or how session/max_tasks/max_priorities interact with results, which the schema partially covers.

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 80% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond the bare enum list by explaining the semantics of every 'what' value and restating that 'queue'/'mutex' require a Queue_t handle expression. It adds meaningful interpretation the enum alone does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb (Reads) and resource (FreeRTOS state) and then enumerates exactly what each 'what' value yields, including internal structures like pxCurrentTCB and ready/delayed/suspended/deleted lists. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like detect_rtos or analyze_stack without opening the schema.

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?

It gives conditional requirements (queue/mutex need a handle) and describes what each mode returns, but never states when to reach for this tool versus detect_rtos, analyze_stack, or read_variable. Usage is implied by the mode descriptions rather than explicitly scoped.

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