cdl.get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read operation via 'Read', but fails to mention potential side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or the format of returned bytes. The lack of detail about 'decoded' behavior and unsupported regions leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is so terse that it omits valuable context about parameters and usage, making it slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter details, prerequisites (such as needing a CDL session), or how the read behaves in edge cases, making it inadequate for effective tool use.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions no parameters' meaning, leaving the purpose of session, length, offset, and memoryType entirely undocumented. This is a critical gap for an agent to select and invoke parameters correctly.

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 ('Read') and identifies the resource ('decoded Code/Data Logger bytes') and location ('supported ROM region'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cdl.start, cdl.stop, and cdl.export, which manage or export CDL data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cdl.export or cpu.read_memory. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g., a started CDL session) or explicit exclusions, leaving the usage context implied at best.

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