self_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool 'runs' the self-test and 'reports' pass/fail, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires device state conditions. This is insufficient for a tool that likely interacts with hardware.

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 two short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the action and outcome, and the second provides usage context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits parameter semantics and behavioral details (e.g., is the self-test non-invasive?), which are important for an agent deciding to invoke it. The usage tip adds some context, but the overall completeness is only adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has one required parameter 'device' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'device' means or how it should be formatted, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tools like list_devices. With no parameter guidance, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool runs the device's built-in self-test and reports pass/fail, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_analog or read_digital, though the action is distinct in context.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Useful as a first diagnostic when reads return unexpected values.' This gives a concrete scenario but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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