configure_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states that it sets parameters, but does not disclose whether this persists, applies in real-time, requires permissions, or what happens on invalid input. This is comparable to the update_drive example, which scored 2 for lacking side-effect and permission disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and gives an example. There is no extraneous information; every word earns its place.

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 only two simple optional parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks workflow context—such as whether this configures a log channel before connecting, or whether it modifies an active session. Given the sibling tools like log_connect and probe_connect, the description would benefit from noting its place in the overall flow.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates somewhat by providing example values ('COM5', 115200) that clarify the expected type and format for uart_port and uart_baudrate. However, it does not explain that both parameters are optional or that they default to null, nor does it provide valid ranges or constraints beyond the schema titles.

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 'Set' with the resource 'UART log channel parameters' and provides concrete examples (uart_port='COM5', uart_baudrate=115200). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling configuration tools like configure_probe and configure_elf, and from log-reading tools like log_tail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether it should be called before log_connect or probe_connect, or what the recommended flow is. The description simply states the action without providing any usage context.

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