read_rtt_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the internal behavior (scanning RAM for 'SEGGER RTT' magic, reading the ring buffer) and notes the target must be halted. However, it does not disclose whether the target remains halted after the read or what the return value looks like, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a brief mechanism explanation, and a bulleted parameter list. It is compact and every sentence adds value, though the parameter list could have also covered max_bytes for completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview but misses key details: max_bytes is not mentioned, and the return format is not described. The halt behavior note is helpful but incomplete regarding target state restoration.

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 description explains channel, search_start, and search_size with defaults and meanings, providing useful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, max_bytes is completely omitted, and since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this leaves a notable gap in the agent's understanding of the tool's parameters.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Read Segger RTT log output directly from target RAM via probe (no UART needed).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like uart_read_bytes and log_tail by highlighting the RTT mechanism and lack of UART dependency.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Requires probe connected and target halted (or briefly halted to read).' It also implies the alternative context by saying 'no UART needed,' but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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