set_svd_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool changes server state at runtime, affects subsequent peripheral reads, and avoids a restart. However, it does not mention validation behavior, whether an invalid path errors immediately, or whether the new path overrides an existing SVD setting. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and effect are front-loaded, followed by a concise comparison to set_device. Every clause contributes useful information for an agent.

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 single-parameter runtime setter with no output schema, the description covers the core behavioral contract: what it does, when to use it vs. set_device, and the benefit of runtime application. It stops short of explaining error/validation behavior, which would make it fully complete, but the essentials are present.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the path parameter. The description's mention of 'CMSIS-SVD file' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Path to a .svd or .svd.gz file for this exact part.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Point the server at a CMSIS-SVD file for the target at runtime.' It clearly states the intended effect on peripheral reads ('named fields and decoded values instead of raw hex') and explicitly distinguishes itself from set_device, making the tool's purpose and differentiation clear.

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 explicitly names the alternative (set_device) and gives the decisive usage condition: 'Mirrors set_device — you do not have to restart with SVD_PATH set.' This tells the agent when to use this runtime approach versus the alternative that requires a restart.

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