describe_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool describes field attributes (e.g., access type, enumerated values), which implies a read-only, informational operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, output format, or any behavioral constraints (e.g., file access requirements, performance limits), leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear usage guideline. Both sentences are essential and waste no words, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent selecting tools.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what the output looks like, error cases) and does not compensate for the absence of structured fields. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more contextual information would improve completeness.

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%, with all four parameters (svd_file, peripheral, register, field) well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no extra semantic value is added.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Describe a specific bit-field') and resource ('within a register'), listing key attributes like bit offset, width, access type, and enumerated values. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_peripherals, lookup_register) by focusing on detailed field-level information rather than peripheral/register listing or lookup.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need to understand or set a specific control bit or flag.' This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives, guiding the agent to select this tool for detailed field analysis rather than broader operations offered by siblings.

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