list_peripherals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It communicates that this is a read-only enumeration and reveals the SVD-configuration prerequisite, but it does not disclose what happens if no SVD file is configured, whether a target connection is required, or how results are formatted.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the core action and source come first, and the prerequisite is a separate, front-loaded condition. Every word 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 simple listing tool with one optional filter and no output schema, the description gives the essential information: what is listed, the data source, and the prerequisite. It could be more complete by describing the return format or failure mode if the SVD is missing, but those are minor gaps.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter ('filter') completely as a case-insensitive substring, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('the target's peripherals and base addresses') and identifies the data source (CMSIS-SVD). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like read_peripheral, which reads a peripheral's registers, and set_svd_path, which manages SVD configuration.

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 states an explicit prerequisite: an SVD file must be configured, which tells the agent when this tool is viable and implies checking setup first. It does not name alternatives or give when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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