serial_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only says 'send a command.' It does not mention buffer clearing behavior, output handling, or whether it waits for a prompt. The schema describes the clear parameter, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core action and target. It is concise and well-structured.

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, but the description omits important contextual details: no mention of return value, expected session state, or differences from similar serial commands. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficiently complete.

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?

All 3 parameters are fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 clear action ('Send a command') and target ('a serial shell session'), and the 'serial' qualifier differentiates it from ssh/power/adb shell write tools. However, it does not distinguish from serial_exec or clarify how it relates to serial_read, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over serial_exec or serial_send_ctrl, nor are prerequisites like an open session from serial_open mentioned. The description gives no context for usage decisions.

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