send_command

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: writes command with line ending, listens for response for reply_seconds (capped at 30s). It doesn't discuss edge cases like empty reply, but gives sufficient transparency for typical use.

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?

Highly concise: first sentence summarizes purpose, then a short paragraph adds context, followed by a clean Args list. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers all necessary aspects: tool action, parameters, usage context, and behavioral constraints. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description compensates fully. The Args section explains each parameter: port, command, baudrate (default 115200), reply_seconds (capped at 30s), line_ending (appended automatically). Adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's action: 'Send `command` to the device and capture its reply.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like 'read_serial' which only reads.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'Use this to drive a firmware's command shell (CLI over UART) — e.g. send "status" and read what comes back.' Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but context signals and sibling names (e.g., read_serial, flash_firmware) help.

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