rtt_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite (firmware must integrate SEGGER RTT library) and the post-start capabilities (using rtt_read/rtt_write), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally (e.g., initializes communication channels, returns status), potential side effects, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences in Chinese that efficiently convey the purpose, prerequisite, and follow-up actions. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

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 that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, but has an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, prerequisite, and post-execution context. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details about what 'starting RTT communication' entails operationally.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to document and the description doesn't incorrectly reference 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 the tool's purpose: '啟動 RTT（Real-Time Transfer）通訊' (Start RTT communication). It specifies the verb ('啟動' - start) and resource ('RTT通訊' - RTT communication). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rtt_stop' or 'rtt_get_status' beyond mentioning that after starting, 'rtt_read' and 'rtt_write' can be used.

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 some usage context: '目標韌體必須已整合 SEGGER RTT 函式庫' (Target firmware must already integrate SEGGER RTT library) and mentions that after starting, 'rtt_read' and 'rtt_write' can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rtt_stop' or 'rtt_get_status', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the library requirement.

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