send_break

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

The description discloses the physical behavior (TX held low), the duration parameter, and the read-only mode refusal. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It doesn't mention side effects like whether the connection must be active or what happens if ms is 0, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and key parameter, the second provides usage context, and the third states a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context, usage scenarios, and a key restriction. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'connection' parameter, but the tool's simplicity and the output schema reduce the need for more detail.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'ms' as the duration in milliseconds, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. However, it doesn't explain the 'connection' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies which serial connection to use. The description partially compensates but leaves a 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 states a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('BREAK condition (TX held low)') and explains the purpose with concrete examples (ROMMON, attention signal). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like send_text, send_hex, and pulse_line by focusing on the BREAK condition.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Some consoles use BREAK to enter ROMMON or interrupt boot; some serial devices use it as an attention signal') and explicitly states a key exclusion: 'Refused in read-only mode.' It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this is the right tool.

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