stm32_read_option_bytes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' clearly implies a non-destructive operation, and listing specific configuration fields adds context. However, it does not disclose return format, required probe state, or any potential side effects beyond the implied read-only nature.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function and examples. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the specific configuration data returned. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., probe connection) or output formatting, but overall is sufficient for a user to understand what the tool does.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The schema sufficiently documents 'sn' and 'port'.

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 (Read) and identifies a clear resource (target MCU Option Bytes configuration), then enumerates the specific contents (RDP protection level, BOR, Watchdog, Boot flags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stm32_write_option_bytes and stm32_read_memory.

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 when to use the tool by naming the exact configuration area, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. Context signals include stm32_write_option_bytes, so a user could infer the read/write pairing, but no direct guidance is provided.

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