pyocd_rtt_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses non-blocking behavior and return of text/hex. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., RTT must be started), side effects, or required permissions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behaviors. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and non-blocking nature. However, it lacks mention of prerequisite steps (e.g., ensure pyocd_rtt_start was called) and does not elaborate on the output format beyond 'text and hex'.

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 schema descriptions are adequate (defaults and types). The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond stating it returns text and hex, which is already covered by output schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 'Read' and the resource 'RTT up channel', and distinguishes from sibling RTT tools like pyocd_rtt_write, pyocd_rtt_start, etc. It specifies the output format (text and hex) and behavioral trait (non-blocking).

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 implies usage when reading from an RTT up channel and notes non-blocking behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor when not to use it (e.g., if RTT is not started). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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