set_pwm

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. It states the tool sets PWM frequency, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe effects (e.g., on hardware, persistence), permissions needed, error conditions, or side effects. The range constraint is noted, but overall behavioral context is minimal.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and key constraint (range 0-100). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral effects, return values, error handling, and how it relates to sibling tools. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe or effective use by an AI agent.

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%, with the parameter 'frequency' well-documented in the schema as an integer in range 0-100. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating the range, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('设置PWM频率' - set PWM frequency) and the resource (PWM), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'led_control' or 'get_pico_info', but the specificity of PWM frequency setting is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'led_control' (which might involve PWM for LEDs) or other potential tools. It mentions the frequency range (0-100) but doesn't explain application contexts, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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