search_peripheral

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting chip-specific scoping and citations, but it does not disclose operational details such as pagination, failure modes, or result boundaries beyond the annotations.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and packs the scope and citation behavior into one clause.

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 read-only search tool, the annotations and output schema cover safety and return-value concerns. However, the description still leaves parameter semantics for query/top_k and usage differentiation from siblings under-specified, creating moderate gaps for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the semantics of query or top_k. It only loosely implies that chip and peripheral are the search scope; the free-text query and result-limit parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('one STM32 peripheral'), and key constraints ('chip-specific scope and citations'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from broader doc or register lookups, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_stm32_docs or get_register.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus search_stm32_docs or get_register. The phrase 'one STM32 peripheral' implies a narrow scope, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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