probe_stlink

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

No annotations are provided so the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies a read-only probing action and references the underlying st-info command, which adds some transparency. However, it does not state whether the probe requires an active connection, what happens if no target is attached, or the exact response shape.

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?

Single sentence front-loading the action and enumerating the three returned fields; every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained further. The description is complete enough for a zero-parameter probe, though it could mention connection prerequisites or error behavior for a fully self-contained definition.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly conveys a no-input invocation.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Show the connected ST-Link target' with specific fields (chip id, flash, SRAM size). It also discloses the underlying command (st-info --probe), distinguishing it from siblings like flash_stm32, reset_stm32, or list_ports.

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 implies a read-only inspection use case and names the resets/flash siblings implicitly via context, but does not explicitly say when to use this versus reset_stm32 or flash_stm32. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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