la_decode

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a non-destructive operation, and "decode captured traces" is consistent with that. The description adds only that decoders may be real sigrok decoders or simulator stubs; it says nothing about where results go, what 'run' versus 'last' changes behaviorally, or any resource constraints. Moderate added value against a low annotation bar.

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?

One purpose sentence followed by three compact, illustrative examples; the purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The examples are terse enough that they earn their place rather than bloating the definition.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the common decode paths but leaves three of six operation values ('run', 'last', and spi usage) and any description of returned output unexplained. Adequate for the main use cases, incomplete for the full operation surface.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the examples genuinely add meaning by binding parameter sets to operations (rx for uart, sda/scl for i2c), which the flat schema does not convey. This is real value beyond the structured fields, though 'run', 'last', and spi channel wiring remain unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Decode captured digital traces') and names the mechanisms involved (sigrok decoders, simulator stubs), which is meaningfully more specific than a bare restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like la_capture or la_configure, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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 three examples imply usage patterns by showing operation="list" versus protocol-specific calls like "uart" with rx and "i2c" with sda/scl, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., that a capture must precede decoding), and no mention of when to prefer this over the sibling tools.

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