Detect Hardware

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining that it infers board/FQBN and generates commands. There is no contradiction, and the description provides additional context about the tool's behavior beyond annotations.

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?

A single 14-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no wasted content.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned in context) and the description covering the main purpose (detect, infer, generate commands), the description is complete for this tool's complexity. It adequately differentiates from numerous siblings.

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% with parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the tool's overall function rather than parameter details.

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 uses specific verbs 'detect', 'infer', 'generate' and clearly states the resource (Arduino-compatible hardware) and outcomes (board/FQBN candidates, next compile/upload commands). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_connected_boards' and 'get_board_details' by emphasizing inference and command generation.

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 implies usage before compile/upload by saying 'generate next compile/upload commands', but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives like 'list_connected_boards' or 'get_board_details'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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