set_supply_voltage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return value ('Returns 'OK' on success') and includes a warning, but does not disclose potential error conditions, side effects, or required permissions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a warning. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 the primary purpose, a prerequisite, a return value, and a crucial warning. It is sufficient for a tool with one required parameter and an output schema (though not shown). However, it lacks details on error handling or the format of the voltage parameter.

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 must add meaning for parameters. It provides example voltages for the 'voltage' parameter but does not explain the optional 'tool' and 'serialnumber' parameters. While the examples help, the lack of explanation for all parameters limits the added value.

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 specifies the action ('set'), the resource ('debugger's onboard supply voltage'), and provides concrete examples ('3.3 or 5.0'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'read_supply_voltage' which reads instead of sets.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires a USB HID debugger with onboard supply capability') and a critical warning about ensuring target device voltage compatibility. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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