Decode UART/RS-232 asynchronous serial data from a saved channel window, including configurable baud, parity, and data bits, and report framing or parity warnings.
Decode UART/RS-232-style asynchronous serial from a saved channel window. Always report framing/parity warnings rather than silently trusting text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uart | No | ||
| channel | Yes | ||
| start_s | No | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| capture_id | Yes | ||
| duration_s | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose an important behavior: framing/parity warnings should always be reported rather than silently trusting decoded text. However, it does not explain permissions, failure modes, return format, or other operational traits.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core decode operation, and uses the second sentence for a critical behavioral instruction. There is no wasted language.
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 tool has six parameters, a nested UART configuration object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description identifies the operation and one output-quality requirement but leaves parameter behavior and configuration semantics largely unexplained.
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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain capture_id, channel, start_s, duration_s, max_bytes, or the nested uart configuration fields such as baud, parity, data_bits, and stop_bits.
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 states a specific verb and resource: decode UART/RS-232-style asynchronous serial from a saved channel window. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling decode_protocol tool.
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 implies the tool is used for decoding UART-style serial from saved channel windows, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as decode_protocol or analyze_window.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.