Detect Hardware

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that it generates rather than executes compile/upload commands and that it infers FQBN candidates, but it doesn't detail output shape or heuristics. No contradiction 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: the action, the target hardware, the inference outcome, and the generated next commands.

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?

No required parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations reduce the burden. However, with many sibling tools covering detection and board listing, the description lacks workflow placement and does not hint at when this richer detection is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents port and includeBoardDetails. The description adds no extra parameter-level context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete action ('Detect connected Arduino-compatible hardware'), the resource, and what it produces ('infer board/FQBN candidates, and generate next compile/upload commands'). It is specific enough to distinguish from simpler listing siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to call this tool versus list_connected_boards, list_serial_ports, or get_board_details, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer that it is a pre-compile/upload detection step.

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