Scan a 1-Wire bus to list every device's 64-bit ROM code and decode its family. If no devices are found, check for the required 4.7k data-line pull-up.
1-Wire 搜索 ROM，列出总线上每颗器件的 64 位 ROM 码，并解出家族码对应的器件。
搜不到时的第一条怀疑对象是数据线缺 4.7k 上拉（1-Wire 靠上拉给器件充电， 缺了必然一颗都搜不到）——输出里会给完整清单。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bus | No | ||
| port | No | ||
| baudrate | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the failure mode and diagnostic insight (pull-up requirement) and that output is a complete list, but omits anything about the scan's timing, bus/port acquisition behavior, or error signaling.
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?
Well front-loaded: purpose first, then the diagnostic caveat. Both sentences earn their place without padding, though the emphasis styling on the pull-up tip is slightly heavy for the space.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose and a failure mode adequately. However, with three fully undocumented parameters and no usage routing versus sibling scan tools, it is only minimally complete.
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 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters (bus, port, baudrate). The names are somewhat self-evident, but for a hardware scan tool the meaning of 'port' and the interaction between bus/port is left entirely undocumented.
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: performs 1-Wire Search ROM, lists each device's 64-bit ROM code, and resolves family codes to device names. The '1-Wire' qualifier implicitly separates it from i2c_scan/spi_scan siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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 only context offered is a troubleshooting hint for when nothing is found (missing 4.7k pull-up). It never says when to choose this over i2c_scan/spi_scan or what prerequisites exist, so the agent must infer selection from the bus name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.