Safety Preflight

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint': true already indicates this is a safe, read-only operation, and the description's 'Run electrical preflight checks' is consistent with that. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the checks involve 'voltage/current/pin risks', which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and timing. Every word is necessary; there is no filler. It is easy to read and efficiently conveys the essential information.

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 tool has 5 parameters (none required), nested objects, and an output schema, the description captures the core purpose and when to use it. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema exists to handle that. The description is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.

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 input schema already describes all parameters (board, fqbn, port, wiring, power) with decent detail, achieving about 60% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it does not improve understanding beyond the schema. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 verb 'Run', the resource 'electrical preflight checks', and the scope 'voltage/current/pin risks'. It also specifies the timing 'before upload or serial write operations', making it distinct from sibling tools like 'compile_sketch' or 'upload_sketch'.

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 explicitly says 'before upload or serial write operations', providing clear context for when to use this tool. While it does not list when not to use it or alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate it from sibling tools, which are about other operations like compilation or serial monitoring.

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