view

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that output beyond max_chars is written to a file whose path appears in the reply, that deadlines may need raising for slow work such as flash programming, and that PER reads can touch registers with read side effects. That last caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long example list is dense but informative. The three short paragraphs are somewhat disjointed transitions rather than a flowing structure, but each sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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 4-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, nearly everything an agent needs is present: accepted input class, truncation behavior, timeout tuning, and side-effect warnings. The only unaddressed item is when to prefer csv output, which is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: max_chars truncation behavior and where the overflow goes, the expectation that `window` is a full command with arguments, and why deadline_s might be raised. It does not describe the csv format option, which is left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a TRACE32 window as text") and immediately grounds it with concrete examples like Register.view, Frame.view /Locals /Caller, and Data.dump D:0x20000000++0xFF. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `command` tool by stating that only display windows are accepted here and that everything else should go through PRinTer.FILE and WinPrint.

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?

Explicit routing rules are present: use this only for display windows, otherwise use `command` with PRinTer.FILE/WinPrint, and use full command names. It also gives conditional guidance per case — a record range for Trace.List because a full list can be gigabytes, and a warning before reading PER windows.

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