Reports current line count, capacity limit, and percentage used for the serial window buffer so you can monitor buffer usage.
Report how many lines the window buffer holds, its limit and the percentage used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | Target port |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description is solely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It states *what* is reported but fails to disclose critical behaviors such as whether the call is blocking, the structure/format of the return value, or required privileges.
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, highly functional sentence. It is front-loaded and contains zero superfluous wording, making it highly concise.
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?
It is highly complete regarding the metrics it tracks (count, limit, percentage). However, without an output schema, a definitive return format or error handling behavior is missing, preventing a score of 5.
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?
The schema coverage is 100%, satisfying the baseline for parameter semantics. The description itself adds no semantic value to the 'port' parameter beyond what is already defined in the schema.
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 function: reporting buffer metrics (lines held, limit, percentage used). While specific, it functions well as a diagnostic tool distinct from other serial operations in the sibling list.
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 usage is strongly implied by the tool name and the context of sibling tools (serial communication). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus, for example, reading the data directly or clearing the buffer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.