collect_rtos_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only collection operation but does not state side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The word 'collect' suggests non-destructive but without explicit statement, it's incomplete.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It is concise but lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain what data is collected, how parameters shape results, or what the output looks like. The mention of 'optional task-context facts' hints but doesn't specify.

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 provides parameter names and defaults but no descriptions. The description says 'optional task-context facts' but does not link this to task_name or explain how task_name_len and max_priorities affect collection. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'collect' and identifies the resource as 'FreeRTOS task and optional task-context facts,' clearly indicating the tool's domain. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like list_rtos_tasks or rtos_task_context, leaving ambiguity about what 'facts' means.

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 is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like list_rtos_tasks.

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