probe_device_read_only

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: serial framing 460800/8N1, that the port is closed after completion, and that no parameters are written — exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the registers being read and followed by the operational constraints; every clause carries information. Slightly hard to parse due to semicolon-chaining, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The description supplies protocol details and side effects (port closure), leaving only the port-parameter behavior as a gap relative to a fairly simple single-parameter probe tool.

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 0% for the single 'port' parameter (default COM7, no description in the schema), and the description never mentions the port parameter or what happens when it is omitted. It partially compensates by giving the link settings (460800/8N1), but an agent still cannot tell how port selection interacts with select_serial_device.

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 a specific verb (read/复用原软件读取) and concrete resources: parameter version, A02.00 software version, A00.00 status, and C05.19~21 actual MAC. It clearly separates itself from write-path siblings via '不写参数', though it never names the closest alternatives (probe_selected_device_read_only, read_device_parameters).

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase '复用原软件' (mimic the vendor software's read sequence) and the explicit '不写参数' exclusion, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over probe_selected_device_read_only or read_device_parameters, and no prerequisites such as whether the port must first be selected.

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