flash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers: '⚠️ 有副作用' discloses that the tool mutates state, and '受烧录预算上限保护' reveals a budget-cap safeguard. The status-check precondition implies the call can fail due to quota/port contention. It does not mention that existing firmware gets overwritten or how exhaustion errors surface, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then side-effect warning, then the precondition. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. This is exemplary 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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation context: side effects, budget protection, and the status-check prerequisite. The schema covers all four parameters, so nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing. The only gap is post-call behavior/return value, which is a minor omission given the strong schema coverage.

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 baseline is 3: every parameter (port, board, reason, project_dir) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal context by tying reason to the budget concept (justifying another flash), but no essential parameter meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('把项目烧录到开发板' — flash the project to the development board). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: erase_flash (erasing), compile (building), read_serial (reading serial output), and status (checking state). An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit, actionable precondition: '调用前先用 status 确认还有额度、串口空闲' — check status first to confirm quota and serial port availability. This names the sibling status and the condition that gates usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use flash or mention alternatives like compile/erase_flash, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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