Board health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is read (supply rails and die temperature) but does not go further into behavior such as response shape, timing, or environmental assumptions. With the annotation coverage, this 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and object, the second states practical use cases. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what is read and why an agent would call it; nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, and the schema already provides enum values, a default, and a description for response_format. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read the Zynq XADC: internal supply rails and die temperature.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sdr_tune or sdr_get_status, and the title 'Board health' is reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'checking the board is healthy, or whether it is running hot.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it—a minor gap given the many sibling tools.

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