hid_descriptor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by explaining that a capture-path `source` is resolved by locating GET_DESCRIPTOR 0x22, but it omits error behavior, output format, and any constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary source parameter is explained first and the optional decode secondary. Slightly dense inline formatting but nothing wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. All three parameters are addressed and the source-resolution behavior is covered, leaving only error/edge-case behavior unstated.

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, and it largely does: it defines `source` as either a capture path or descriptor hex, `decode_hex` as a single report payload, and constrains `report_type` to Input/Output/Feature beyond the schema's bare 'Input' default. Only minor detail (e.g. hex string format) is missing.

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 states a specific verb (Decode) and resource (HID report descriptor), plus the optional secondary capability of decoding a report payload. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like wireshark_dissector or replay_packet, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the resource being decoded, so an agent gets no routing help.

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