read_supply_voltage

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

The description discloses return format (float string) and prerequisite hardware, which are key behavioral traits for a read-only tool. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers the safety profile and constraints.

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?

Three sentences focus on purpose, output, and requirement. Front-loaded with the core action. Concise with no fluff, though could be slightly more efficient.

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?

The description covers output format and hardware context, which partially compensates for missing parameter explanations. However, the lack of parameter documentation and error handling leaves gaps for a tool with an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the 'tool' and 'serialnumber' parameters. The agent has no guidance on how to populate these fields, limiting usability.

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 tool reads the debugger's onboard supply voltage setpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_target_voltage (which likely reads actual target voltage) and set_supply_voltage (write operation).

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 context via hardware requirement (Curiosity Nano) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like read_target_voltage. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are stated, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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