list_rtos_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the internal traversal of RTOS lists (pxReadyTasksLists, xDelayedTaskList, xSuspendedTaskList) and which TCB fields are read, plus the operating prerequisite. It does not describe failure modes or side effects, but for a read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 compact and efficient: one sentence for purpose, one for implementation mechanics, two for parameter semantics, and one for prerequisites. Every sentence adds operational value without redundancy.

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 description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, and the type of output (task state, priority, stack usage). However, because no output schema exists, it could specify the exact return format (e.g., array of task objects) and potential null/error cases. Still, it is reasonably complete for a 2-parameter optional tool.

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?

Since the schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates fully by explaining 'max_priorities' as an upper bound for scanning the ready lists and 'task_name_len' as configMAX_TASK_NAME_LEN, including defaults. This gives the agent actionable meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with 'List all FreeRTOS tasks with state, priority, and stack usage' – a specific verb and resource with clear output fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'rtos_task_context' by explicitly targeting all tasks rather than a single task.

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?

Prerequisites are clearly stated: 'Requires ELF loaded and probe connected with target halted.' This provides context on when the tool is callable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like 'rtos_task_context' for single-task queries, so the differentiation is implied rather than direct.

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