stm32_connect_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool connects and retrieves information, but does not mention any side effects (e.g., halting the core), preconditions (e.g., probe connected, target powered), or failure modes. The listed outputs provide some transparency about expected results.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and specifies the retrieved data. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 connection/info tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lists the returned data but omits workflow context (e.g., that this is likely a first step before flashing) and behavioral caveats. The schema covers parameters thoroughly, but the tool's place among siblings and failure conditions are unclear. It is minimally viable but lacks completeness for an agent deciding when to use it.

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 provides descriptions for all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about parameters like sn, freq, mode, port, or reset, leaving the schema to do the heavy lifting. No additional context is provided.

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 the tool connects to an STM32 MCU and retrieves specific device details (Chip ID, Flash size, Revision ID, CPU Core), distinguishing it from sibling tools that flash, erase, read, write, or reset. The verb 'connect' and the listed outputs make the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when you need to identify or connect to a target MCU, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like stm32_list_probes for probe discovery or stm32_read_memory for reading memory. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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