set_cpu_overclock

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions overclocking and a default of OFF, but lacks details on potential side effects, hardware risks, or required permissions. For a potentially hardware-altering tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and includes necessary context in a single sentence and parenthetical.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential use case. However, it lacks guidance on valid values and safety precautions for overclocking, which could be important.

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 100%, and the description adds the type ('UINT8') and default ('OFF'). However, there is a type mismatch: schema says string but description implies numeric type. This adds some confusion, but overall provides useful extra context.

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 overclocks the STM32 F7 processor. The verb 'overclock' and the specific processor name make the purpose evident, distinguishing it from other set_* tools.

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 provides a condition for use ('Use only if CPU load is too high and the board supports it'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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