mc3000_build_profile

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is non-destructive (only builds a frame), but omits details on prerequisites (e.g., connection), error conditions, or whether the frame is stored or returned.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy, front-loads the core action and key constraint.

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 tool has 20 parameters and no output schema; the description is minimal and does not explain the built frame's structure or how to use it subsequently. Adequate but could benefit from more context about the frame format or next steps.

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 coverage is low (35%), and the description adds no parameter-level context. The many parameters (20) need additional explanation to guide the agent, but the description is generic.

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?

Description clearly states the action (build), the object (40-byte MC3000 profile/program frame), and a key qualifier (without sending it), differentiating it from sibling tools like mc3000_apply_profile.

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 phrase 'without sending it' implies a two-step process (build then apply), and sibling names like mc3000_apply_profile clarify when to use each. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is strong.

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