configure_bus_can

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses default values and valid ranges (e.g., baud default 1 Mbps, sample_point default 80), but says nothing about side effects such as overwriting existing bus configuration, whether acquisition must be stopped, permission requirements, or idempotency.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact per-parameter list where every line carries distinct information. No filler; the manual reference is the only ancillary detail and is brief.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameter semantics are thorough. What remains missing for a no-annotation configure tool is prerequisite/ordering context and any caution about reconfiguring a bus already in use.

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% and all 8 parameters are undocumented in the schema, yet the description compensates fully: it specifies units and ranges for baud/fd_baud, the enum choices for signal_type (TX|RX|CANH|CANL|DIFFerential), the numeric range for sample points, and the meaning of display — plus defaults for the key parameters.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Set Bus <n> to CAN/CAN-FD decoding and configure it'), which unambiguously distinguishes this tool from the many sibling protocol configurators (configure_bus_spi, configure_bus_iic, configure_bus_lin, etc.). An agent can identify CAN/CAN-FD decoding setup 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use it to set up a CAN bus for decoding), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as connecting to an instrument, bus enablement, or ordering relative to configure_bus / read_bus_data. No alternative tool is named or excluded.

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