serial_boot_status

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses the precondition that the device profile must declare boot_stages and that it reports none otherwise, plus the stall-detection behavior. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences: the return content is front-loaded, followed by the precondition and the usage/routing guidance. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be restated, and the description still covers the precondition, the trigger condition, and the fallback sibling. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('Report cold-boot progress') and enumerates exactly what it returns: stages reached, furthest stage, and stall status. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like serial_read or serial_port_status.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use after a reset or power cycle') and routes the agent to serial_get_incidents when the boot is stalled. It stops short of stating when not to use it, but the context and alternative are concrete.

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