set_mco2_on_pc9

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions the default ('default: OFF') and the parameter type ('UINT8'), but does not disclose side effects, persistence, valid value range, or what happens on invalid input. Behavior is partially described.

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, using a single line to convey the purpose, target audience, and parameter hint. It is front-loaded and every part adds value. No fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 tool is a simple set command with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter default/type. However, missing information such as valid values, whether the parameter affects runtime or is persistent, and error states leaves gaps. Annotations are absent, so the description should be more complete.

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 covers 100% of the parameter description, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'default: OFF' and notes the type ('UINT8'), which provides marginal extra context. However, it does not explain how to encode the value (e.g., 'ON'/'OFF' or numeric), and the schema declares the type as string while description says UINT8, causing potential confusion.

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 specific action: 'Output MCO2 clock signal on PC9 pin (STM32 specific)'. It uses a specific verb ('Output') and resource ('MCO2 clock signal on PC9 pin'), and adds context ('Advanced hardware debugging only'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_mco2_on_pc9' and other tool families.

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 indicates the tool is for 'Advanced hardware debugging only', which sets a context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor mention alternatives like 'get_mco2_on_pc9' for reading the current state. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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