stm32_list_probes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation via the verb 'List' and specifies the device types scanned, but it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., drivers), return format, or behavior when no devices are found.

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, information-dense sentence with no redundant words or filler. It covers the full scope of the tool in minimal space.

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 discovery tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description adequately conveys the core function. However, it lacks explicit mention of output format or error behavior, and no output schema exists to compensate.

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 single parameter interface_type is fully documented in the schema with enum values and a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'connected ST-LINK debug probes, J-Link programmers, USB bootloaders, and COM serial ports.' This unambiguously identifies the tool as a discovery/enumeration tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stm32_flash_firmware or stm32_connect_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 clearly implies the tool is for enumerating connected hardware before other STM32 operations, by listing the specific device types it scans. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide any exclusions, 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.