rtos_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real side effect: each key is registered in IPParameters 'exactly like the GUI does'. That is genuinely useful non-obvious context. However, it is silent on whether changes are in-memory only or persisted to the project file (needing project_save), what permissions/state it requires, and how read vs write mode is triggered.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and the key examples front-loaded; nothing is padded. Slightly run-on, packing the IPParameters side effect into the same sentence rather than separating it.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, and the tool has a free-form nested object parameter, so the description must carry more weight than it does. The read path (what is returned for a scalar, or all of them, and whether project_id is needed) is entirely undescribed, as is persistence behavior.

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% and both parameters are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming additional valid keys (configTOTAL_HEAP_SIZE, configMAX_PRIORITIES) beyond the schema's single example, but it never clarifies value typing or key-name format beyond the 'config*' prefix.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Read or set FreeRTOS configuration scalars') and enumerates concrete config keys, which separates it from rtos_objects/rtos_schema/rtos_status by resource type. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state the boundary versus rtos_object_write, so it stops short of a 5.

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 dual 'read or set' framing implies that omitting `values` reads and supplying it writes, but this is left to inference. Nothing states prerequisites (open project?), when to prefer this over rtos_object_write or rtos_schema, or any when-not condition.

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