serial_xmodem_receive

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description confirms the destructive nature by stating 'The received file is written to file_path.' It adds protocol-specific behavior (mode selection, timeout). No contradictions. Could elaborate on error handling or partial transfer, but the key trait is conveyed.

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 concise with a clear first sentence, a prerequisite note, and a structured Args list. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly tighter by merging some sentences. Overall, it earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and prerequisite. However, it omits important behavioral details such as what happens on timeout (file may be incomplete), permission requirements for file_path, or how success is indicated. These gaps reduce completeness for safe usage.

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%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter: file_path (path to save), timeout (max seconds), session_id (port name, optional), mode (xmodem or xmodem-crc). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions, providing essential context beyond 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 'Receive a file from the device using XMODEM protocol,' which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool serial_xmodem_send by the direction of transfer. The prerequisite 'device must already be sending' adds specificity.

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: after the device is sending (e.g., after 'sx filename' command). It also notes that session_id is optional if only one session is open, aiding in proper use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools beyond the sibling context.

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