Safety Preflight

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation, and the description's 'checks' wording is consistent with that. The description adds useful context about what is checked (voltage, current, pin risks) but does not disclose what happens on failure or what the output represents.

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 a single sentence with the action, target, and timing all front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 readOnlyHint and an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a tool accepting a nested power/wiring schema with no required fields, the description gives no guidance on how to use the input fields or whether board inference is expected, so it is only moderately 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?

The description does not explain any of the five parameters, including how to supply board/FQBN/port or the nested power/wiring objects. 'Voltage/current/pin risks' loosely maps to power/wiring, but with only 60% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much parameter meaning to inference.

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 specific action (run preflight checks) and a clear resource domain (electrical voltage/current/pin risks). It also positions the tool relative to upload and serial write operations, distinguishing it from the many sibling upload/serial tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before upload or serial write operations. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing and triggering operation are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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