serial.pulse_rts

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

Describes the sequence of actions (low, wait, high) and warns about device-specific side effects. With no annotations, this is sufficient for understanding the tool's impact.

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, front-loaded with action, then context and warning. No wasted words.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers behavior, purpose, and caution. Minor gap: no mention of return value or error behavior, but acceptable.

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?

Description adds meaning to duration_ms by explaining its role in the pulse sequence. However, connection_id is not elaborated. Schema coverage is 50% but description partially compensates.

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?

Clearly states it pulses the RTS line (sets low, waits, sets high). Mentions specific use case (bootloader mode) and distinguishes from siblings like serial.set_rts and serial.pulse_dtr.

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?

Explicitly advises to check protocol spec or ask user before pulsing due to device-specific effects. Provides caution but does not name alternative tools.

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