mcp_gpio_watched

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but only 'List' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical clarifies the semantic meaning of 'watched'. It does not disclose whether the agent must be running, permissions required, return format, or error behavior for an invalid agent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, clearly leading with the verb and resource before the clarifying 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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the required 'agent' parameter undefined and gives no sense of what the listing returns or how it relates to watched-pin configuration.

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% and the single required 'agent' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about what an 'agent' identifier is or how it scopes the watched-pin list.

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 (List) and resource (GPIO pins) with a clear scope qualifier ('currently being actively watched'). The parenthetical explains what 'watched' means (interrupts/webhooks), implicitly distinguishing it from siblings like mcp_gpio_read or mcp_gpio_scan, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus mcp_gpio_read, mcp_gpio_scan, or mcp_gpio_config. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions stated; the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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