board_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that results are aggregated from three underlying device commands (B0 SYSTEM_VERSION, GET_BOARD_INFO, GET_BOARD_TYPE), which explains the composite/latency profile. It doesn't say what happens if one sub-read fails or if the device is unreachable.

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: the scope ('one device') and the returned fields are front-loaded, and the data-source clause is tucked at the end. No filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the aggregated fields. Combined with annotations and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has nearly everything needed; only error/partial-failure behavior is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage, including that it is a bluetoothDeviceId from device_list). The description adds nothing about device_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Aggregated board info for one device') and enumerates exactly what's returned: firmware/loader versions, hardware string, project string, SN, board type. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling readers like device_detail or device_status, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for reading a single device's board identity, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over device_detail, device_status, or device_config_get, nor any prerequisites such as the device needing to be connected.

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