Scan serial ports to detect a connected Nordic Power Profiler Kit II and return candidate command ports; returns an empty list when no hardware is found.
扫描串口并探测 PPK2(以 0x19 元数据应答识别命令口)。
返回候选端口列表;无硬件时返回空列表(可用 PPK2_MOCK=1 演示)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add real context: the probe mechanism, that the return is a list of candidate ports, that an empty list means no hardware, and the mock-mode escape hatch. It omits anything about scan duration, timeouts, or whether it opens/locks the ports it finds.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract and the mock note. Nothing is padded, though both clauses sit in a single terse block.
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?
The description compensates for the absent output schema by describing the return value (candidate port list, empty on no hardware). For a zero-parameter discovery tool this covers what an agent needs, with only timing/port-locking details left unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema has nothing to document and the description correctly does not invent 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?
States a specific verb and resource: scans serial ports and probes for a PPK2, identifying the command port via the 0x19 metadata response. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never references a sibling (e.g., connect, list_captures) to sharpen its boundary.
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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery step before connect, and the mock hint (PPK2_MOCK=1) suggests a demo/no-hardware path. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus alternatives or of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.