rtos_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but a zero-parameter schema tool has little behavior to disclose. It does describe the payload (every field, defaults, allowed values, enabled-condition, .ioc storage), which is useful, yet it never states explicitly that the call is a pure read with no side effects or that it can be called at any time without an open project.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates scope. Every clause is relevant — object types, CMSIS versions, field metadata, enabled-condition, .ioc storage — with no filler, though the parenthetical makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by listing the covered object types and metadata fields. Missing only the output format (JSON vs. text) and whether examples are included, which are minor for a static reference tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-level to document. No meaning is lost, since the schema is empty and the description's content list stands in for the return shape.

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?

It names a specific resource (the RTOS user-object schema CubeMX ships) and enumerates what it covers: tasks/queues/timers/semaphores/mutexes/events, CMSIS RTOS v1 & v2, fields, defaults, allowed values, enabled-condition, and .ioc storage. This clearly distinguishes it from mutating siblings like rtos_object_write and rtos_config, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with rtos_objects.

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 says what the tool contains but never when to call it — no mention of calling it before rtos_object_write or as a lookup alongside rtos_objects. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing statements, so the agent must infer the 'reference lookup' role from the word 'schema'.

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