set_baro_hardware

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 discloses the default (AUTO) and the requirement (USE_BARO), but does not describe side effects, whether changes take effect immediately, or what happens with invalid values. The behavior of 'forcing a driver' is vaguely defined.

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 description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, prerequisite, and default. No unnecessary words; 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?

For a simple configuration setter, the description covers the basic purpose, prerequisite, and default. However, it lacks documentation of valid parameter values (beyond 'AUTO') and does not explain the return value or side effects. Given no output schema, the description should provide more context on expected input values.

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 schema description for the 'value' parameter is minimal ('Value for baro_hardware (UINT8)'). The tool description adds the concept of 'AUTO' as default and the purpose, but does not enumerate valid driver names. There is a potential contradiction: schema says type string, description says UINT8. Baseline is 3 due to 100% schema coverage, but the added value is modest.

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 action ('Set baro_hardware') and the purpose: to force a barometer driver or use AUTO-detect. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_baro_bustype by specifying it targets the hardware selection, not bus parameters.

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 mentions a prerequisite (requires USE_BARO) which helps decide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other baro-related settings (e.g., set_baro_bustype, set_baro_i2c_address) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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