capture_uart_auto_tcp

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 and does so thoroughly. It discloses specific behaviors: VDIV/OFST auto-ranging, baud-rate auto-detection, noise-trigger retry when PKPK < min_pkpk_v, TDIV calculation, and cpd sanity-check. It also explains timeout and retry attempts, giving a transparent view of the tool's operation.

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 well-structured with a summary intro, a bulleted Features list, and a Parameters list. Each feature and parameter earns its place with specific technical detail. No filler or redundancy; it is informative yet compact for the amount of information conveyed.

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 description covers all key aspects: purpose, features, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented there. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites like requiring an active TCP connection (suggested by sibling connect_tcp), but overall it is complete enough for a 7-param 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters with concise yet meaningful explanations: channel (with default), baudrate (0=auto-detect), probe_attn (factor 1 or 10), max_bytes (for TDIV sizing), timeout_s (wait for trigger), max_trigger_attempts (re-ARM attempts), and min_pkpk_v (trigger acceptance threshold). This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Capture UART waveform and auto-decode with full self-calibration.' The Features section further specifies auto-ranging, baud-rate auto-detection, noise-trigger retry, and TDIV auto-calculation, which distinguishes this tool from sibling capture_uart_2mbps_tcp by emphasizing autonomous calibration.

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 implies usage context through the 'auto' in the name and features like baudrate=0 auto-detection and self-calibration. It clearly frames the tool for scenarios requiring automatic setup, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over capture_uart_2mbps_tcp or other capture tools, nor does it mention exclusions.

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