reverse_engineer_unknown_frames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and leaves the most important question unanswered: whether the tool writes a DBC file to disk (and whether it overwrites dbc_path/anything else), or merely returns candidate definitions in the response. It also omits cost/scale characteristics for large logs and says nothing about confidence or how ambiguous candidates are flagged.

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 no filler, and the core action plus output artifact are front-loaded. The parenthetical list of classification categories earns its space by defining scope, though the sentence grows long enough to read as a catalog rather than a directive.

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?

For a tool with a required filesystem path, an optional baseline/write path, a frame filter, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It never explains what the response contains beyond 'a draft candidate DBC', whether side effects occur on disk, or what input conditions cause failure — all of which the agent needs before calling it.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. Critically, it does not clarify whether dbc_path is an input baseline for comparison or the output destination for the drafted DBC, nor what target_frame_id scoping does versus analyzing all frames. The single oblique hint ('emit a draft candidate DBC') is not tied to any parameter.

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 ('Classify') and resource ('undocumented payload bitfields') and enumerates the exact classifications produced (constant masks, alive counters, checksum candidates, continuous signals, discrete flags), plus the concrete artifact ('draft candidate DBC'). This is distinguishable from every sibling: none of the others reverse-engineer unknown frames from a trace log.

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: the agent must infer that this is for frames present in the log but absent from a DBC. The description never says when to prefer this over summarize_trace_log or query_decoded_signals, and never states the prerequisite that decoding/analysis of known signals is a different tool. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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