Reports cold-boot progress by listing reached stages, identifying the furthest stage, and flagging stalls; requires boot_stages in the device profile or returns none.
Report cold-boot progress: which boot stages the device has reached, the furthest stage, and whether the boot has stalled. Requires the device profile to declare boot_stages; otherwise reports none.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: what information is returned and the graceful-degradation case when boot_stages is undeclared ('reports none'). No rate limits or auth details, but none are relevant for a local read.
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 with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite is placed second, so the agent reads the important part first.
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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it by naming the three reported facts plus the fallback behavior. For a no-parameter, read-only query this is fully sufficient.
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 schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to describe.
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 gives a specific verb ('Report') and a narrowly scoped resource ('cold-boot progress'), then enumerates exactly what is reported: stages reached, furthest stage, and stall status. This is clearly distinct from siblings such as serial_port_status or serial_read, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.
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?
It states a concrete applicability condition: the device profile must declare boot_stages, otherwise the tool reports none. That tells the agent when this tool is meaningful, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.