search_stm32_docs

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description reveals critical behavior: it returns source snippets, page-level citations, model scope, warnings, and an explicit abstention state, and it explicitly does not generate an answer. This helps the agent set expectations about abstention and citation-style output. No contradiction with 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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides filter guidance and a clear behavioral boundary. Every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers the main invocation needs: what it searches, what it returns, and how to tighten filters. The mention of an abstention state covers no-match behavior implicitly. A slight gap is not explaining how register/peripheral filters relate to the siblings, but that is not essential for a correct call.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions chip, family, and document_type as useful filters, but does not explain query, top_k, register, or peripheral semantics. Titles and defaults give minimal clues, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search STM32 datasheets and reference manuals and return cited evidence.' It also clarifies what the tool is not ('does not generate an answer'), which distinguishes it from generative Q&A tools. Sibling tools get_register and search_peripheral are narrower, so the broad scope is enough to differentiate.

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 gives actionable guidance: 'Use chip/family/document_type filters whenever known,' which helps an agent improve result relevance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose clearly implies this is the tool for evidence-based documentation searches. No misleading or missing context.

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