rs485_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the critical behavioral limitation that a successful send only confirms bytes left the bridge, not that the peer received them, and warns the message prints in output. It does not cover error behavior, baudrate effects, or DE timing failures, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first sentence, then uses a clear boundary section. It is a bit verbose with emoji/markdown emphasis and a note that the limitation is printed in output, which overlaps with output schema, but overall structured and not wasteful.

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 need not be explained, and the description adds the key caveat about verification limits. It is missing preconditions and parameter guidance, but for a tool whose parameter names are mostly self-explanatory (data, baudrate) and with an output schema, the main completeness gap is moderate.

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 there are 6 parameters (bus, data, port, de_ms, newline, baudrate). The description mentions 'bytes' and DE direction timing but does not document what any parameter means, defaults, or formats. This leaves an agent unable to correctly populate parameters such as de_ms or newline.

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 (send bytes) and a specific resource/mechanism (the bridge's RS485 transceiver), and clarifies the bridge handles DE direction timing. This is clearly distinguished from serial_send (generic serial) by the RS485-specific framing.

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 explains a capability boundary and hints that link verification requires the peer to respond (read via serial_read) or scope inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose rs485_send over serial_send, nor any preconditions (e.g., must serial_open first, bus/port selection).

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