Bus Decode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a creation operation and that jobs are additive (multiple can coexist per waveform), which is a genuine behavioral fact. It omits error behavior for a missing open capture, idempotency, sync/async execution, and permission requirements, making disclosure partial.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a non-obvious behavioral fact about multiple jobs. 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, nested objects (channel_map, options), and zero schema documentation, this description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but an agent cannot reliably construct a valid channel_map or interpret time bounds without external probing, sibling calls, or trial.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameter details. The SPI/I2C example only weakly hints that protocol is a bus-protocol identifier; channel_map structure and values, t_min/t_max semantics, options, and job_id are entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a DecodeJob on the open capture.' The SPI/I2C example clarifies it's a per-protocol decode action. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast siblings like protocol_list or interpret, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'On the open capture' implies the prerequisite that a capture must already be open, and 'Same waveform can have several jobs' signals that repeated calls are expected for stacking decodes. However, no alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions are given, leaving that decision to inference.

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