Validate the DSLogic capture path with its internal pattern generator before protocol work to separate a broken capture setup from a bad probe signal.
Hardware self-test using the DSLogic internal pattern generator. Run this before protocol work to distinguish a broken capture path from a bad probe signal. It does not prove that external wiring is correct.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the diagnostic's blind spot (it cannot validate external wiring), which prevents an agent from over-trusting a pass. It stops short of saying how long it takes, whether it affects device state, or how pass/fail is signaled.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the motivation, then the caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 zero-param diagnostic with no output schema, the main remaining gap is the shape of the result — the agent is not told whether to expect a boolean, a log, or a status string. Otherwise the definition gives enough to call it 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?
Zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool needs no input beyond the attached device.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Hardware self-test using the DSLogic internal pattern generator') and immediately distinguishes itself from the capture-centric siblings by positioning itself as pre-flight verification.
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?
Explicitly says when to run it ('before protocol work') and what decision it informs ('distinguish a broken capture path from a bad probe signal'), plus a clear scope exclusion ('does not prove that external wiring is correct'). This is the when/when-not/limitation triad done well.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.