flash_run

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors such as reading builder.json defaults, auto-picking latest .bin, and auto-resetting after wf. It could mention dependencies or error handling, but it provides substantial transparency.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could benefit from structured bullet points, but it is efficient and informative.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential behaviors, defaults, and common usage patterns. It could mention expected outputs or errors, but it is sufficient for tool selection.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining default behaviors (e.g., auto-picking .bin, reading builder.json) and auto-reset logic, going beyond 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 that the tool invokes Telink bdt.exe to write/read flash/core/otp/analog or reset the chip. It lists specific commands and their purposes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_run or flash_info.

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 provides explicit usage patterns: 'Use wf to flash firmware', 'rst -f to reset', 'rf to read back', and mentions auto-resets unless configured otherwise. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings but gives clear context.

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