cubemx_list_ioc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'without modifying them', which reveals the non-destructive safety profile—a critical behavioral trait. It also hints at an access boundary ('allowed project directory'), adding context beyond the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and a safety qualifier with zero redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list operation, especially with an output schema present, but it lacks critical parameter semantics and usage guidelines. The claimed output schema means return values need not be described, yet the missing context on limit/recursive and sibling differentiation leaves gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies the 'root' parameter via 'below an allowed project directory'. The 'limit' and 'recursive' parameters are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 ('List'), the target ('IOC files'), the scope ('below an allowed project directory'), and a key behavioral constraint ('without modifying them'). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, inspect, or apply, which imply different operations.

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?

Usage context is implied: it lists IOC files before other operations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like cubemx_inspect_ioc or cubemx_plan_ioc_changes, nor any mention of exclusions.

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