configure_bus_flexray

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a manual section but says nothing about mutability, side effects, required device state, or whether existing bus configuration is replaced. For a configuration tool with seven parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action, then lists parameters in a compact, scannable format. Every line earns its place, and the manual reference adds useful traceability without wasting space. No redundant or filler sentences.

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 not be explained. The description covers purpose and parameter semantics well, but it omits behavioral context needed to invoke safely (e.g., state requirements, side effects) and lacks any usage routing among the many configure_bus_* siblings. It is adequate for correct invocation but incomplete for confident selection.

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 provides explicit meaning for every parameter: allowed values, ranges, and defaults (e.g., baud '2500000|5000000|10000000 bps (default 10000000)', sample_point '10..90 in % (default 50)'). It even documents the required bus parameter via 'Set Bus <n>'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set Bus <n> to FlexRay decoding and configure it.' It explicitly names the protocol (FlexRay), which differentiates it from siblings like configure_bus_can or configure_bus_spi. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_bus or other protocol-specific bus configurators. The description only states the action, not the context or prerequisites (e.g., must acquisition be stopped, does it overwrite existing bus settings). No when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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