write_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior (no prompt waiting) and escape sequence handling, which is valuable. However, it omits error behavior, prerequisites like having the port open, and return semantics, leaving gaps for a write 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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the critical qualifier and examples, making every word earn its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core action, behavior, and escape sequences. It is reasonably complete for its complexity, though it could mention prerequisites like an already-open port or potential side effects.

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 100% with both parameters described (data with escape sequence details, path with examples). The description adds a small amount by listing escape sequences and 'etc.', but the schema already covers the essential semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Write raw string data to a serial port' with a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical '(no prompt waiting)' differentiates it from sibling tools like send_command, and the mention of escape sequences further clarifies its raw, low-level nature.

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 clear context: this tool is for writing raw data without waiting for a prompt, implying use cases where low-level control is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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