configure_decode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well. It discloses that omitted items are left unchanged, that bus count is model-dependent, that unsupported protocol variants are rejected, and that the tool only affects display/analysis, not acquisition settings.

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 long but justified by the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose and the 'omitted items are left unchanged' behavior, then uses clear per-protocol bullets and examples so the content is scannable and every section earns 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 complex configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, protocol-specific variants, examples, model dependency, the required sequence for later decoding, and the separation from acquisition configuration. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly. It defines protocol and data_format values, source value ranges, all settings keys per protocol, and provides concrete examples for each protocol. It also clarifies enabled and event_table semantics in the workflow for get_decode_result.

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 'Configure a serial protocol decode bus,' which is a specific verb and resource that immediately identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling configuration tools by listing protocol-specific details and noting that acquisition settings are separately configured via channels and trigger.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context: configuring decode buses, with bus count determined by get_capabilities. It explicitly routes related work elsewhere by saying 'acquisition settings are untouched, so configure the channels and trigger separately,' and tells the user to set event_table=true before reading results with get_decode_result.

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