configure_bus_iis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose what happens to existing bus settings when called, whether configuration is applied immediately or on next acquisition, whether it must be persisted via save_setup, or any permission requirements. The only behavioral hints are the stated defaults (alignment IIS, endian MSB), which is thin for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact, one-line-per-parameter reference block where each line adds meaning. There is little waste, though the breakneck abbreviation style (e.g., 'ws_low: LEFT|RIGHt') is dense.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers nearly all 12 parameters plus the tool's purpose. What is missing is the behavioral layer (side effects, persistence, preconditions), which matters for a configuration mutation with no annotations, keeping it short of a 5.

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% (titles only), so the description must compensate, and it does so well: it explains the meaning and accepted values of clock/data/ws_select, alignment, clk_slope, word_width, receive_width, ws_low, endian, polarity, and display. The notable gap is the required 'bus' parameter itself, whose valid range/identifiers are never described.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('Bus <n>'), and the exact mode ('I2S decoding'), which inherently distinguishes it from the many protocol-specific siblings such as configure_bus_spi, configure_bus_can, and configure_bus_iic. An agent can route to this tool from the name and first sentence alone.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any precondition such as whether the bus must be stopped or the acquisition halted before reconfiguring. Usage can only be inferred from the protocol name. No mention of configure_bus or get_bus_config as related steps.

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