dbgprobe.rtt.read

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses key behaviors: non-blocking, returns buffered data, waits up to timeout for initial data, and encoding options. However, it does not specify if the read is destructive (clears buffer) or the exact return format beyond text/hex.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads purpose and key details. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is read, encoding, blocking behavior, and timeout. It is nearly complete, though it could mention prerequisites like needing an active RTT session or clarifying that the tool consumes the buffer.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the timeout is for initial data waiting, but this is similar to the schema description. No additional semantics beyond what schema provides.

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 the tool reads buffered RTT data from the target, specifies output formats (UTF-8 or hex), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dbgprobe.rtt.write by focusing on reading.

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 (non-blocking, returns buffered data, waits up to timeout) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. It implies usage after starting RTT, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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