stm32_run_mcu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says 'start or resume,' which implies the MCU will begin running. It does not disclose whether this halts an existing debug session, whether it requires the device to be connected, or what happens if the address is invalid. This is a minimal disclosure without side-effect information.

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 with no fluff. It is efficient and to the point, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 two-parameter tool, the description gives the core action but lacks context about preconditions (e.g., a live connection) and post-execution behavior. There is no output schema, and annotations are absent, so this description is minimally viable but not rich.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The phrase 'address or entry point' aligns with the 'address' parameter but adds no new format or semantic details; the 'port' parameter is also not elaborated.

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 action ('start or resume program execution') and the target ('specified address or entry point'). It differentiates from siblings like stm32_reset_mcu by focusing on execution at a custom address rather than reset.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stm32_reset_mcu or after flashing. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., prior connection) or when 'resume' applies rather than 'start'. The lack of context means an agent must infer usage from the name.

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