la_help

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a help tool, so no contradiction, but the description adds nothing beyond the annotation – no mention of whether it hits hardware, whether it can be called before configuration, or what it returns. With annotations covering only the safety profile, the remaining behavioral burden is unmet.

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 short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – the terseness comes from omitting useful content, and nothing is front-loaded because there is only one clause to front-load.

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?

This is a multi-operation dispatcher with an enum of six modes, one of which (tool_help) requires a companion parameter, and there is no output schema. The description should at minimum enumerate what each operation returns or when to use it; instead it says nothing operation-specific.

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% and each parameter is documented in the schema (topic as FAQ filter, operation as help operation, tool_name for tool_help). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It notably does not explain the interaction between operation and the optional parameters.

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 names the domain (logic-analyzer-mcp) and the category of work (help, discovery, hardware guidance), which distinguishes it from the operational siblings la_capture/la_configure/la_decode/la_device/la_trigger. However, it bundles six unrelated operations (discover, tool_help, status, quickstart, faq, hardware_guide) without saying what any of them does, so the purpose is only broadly clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus any sibling, nor which operation to pick for a given need (e.g. 'use discover to list available devices' or 'use tool_help with tool_name to learn another tool'). The agent must infer everything from the enum values alone.

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