DebugForge
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation3/5
While each tool has a distinct function, the high granularity creates numerous similar-purpose tools (e.g., multiple breakpoint types, multiple memory read variants, multiple step/go commands). The descriptions help differentiate, but an agent may struggle to select the correct tool among many closely related options.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., read_memory, set_breakpoint). Minor deviations exist, such as 'step_mode_list' (noun first) and 'bmc_set_atob' (prefix then verb), but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count1/5With 112 tools, the set is excessively large for an MCP server. This overwhelms agent selection and increases the risk of mis-picking. A debugger surface should typically be 10-20 tools; this is far beyond that, severely hurting usability.
Completeness5/5The tool set covers the full debug workflow: connection, target control, breakpoints (all types), memory/register access, trace, performance counters, build/flash, system configuration, and even a knowledge base. No obvious gaps exist for the stated AURIX debugging domain.
Average 4/5 across 112 of 112 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 21 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains that notifications are sent to external tools/scripts when events occur, but omits critical details: idempotency, persistence, scope, permission requirements, or side effects of re-enabling. The return type ('Confirmation') is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences plus Args/Returns) and well-structured. It uses clear headings and bullet points for event types. The Returns line could be more specific, but overall it is efficient with no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is largely adequate: it covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return. However, it lacks context about preconditions (e.g., must be connected to a target), how to disable notifications, and whether settings persist across sessions. These gaps leave the agent with incomplete information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'events' by listing valid values and their meanings, which is valuable given 0% schema coverage. However, the described default (['break', 'go']) contradicts the schema default (null). This inconsistency reduces reliability, though the explanation partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: enabling event notifications for debugger state changes. It specifies the verb ('enable'), resource ('event notifications'), and context ('debugger state changes'), and lists the event types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like set_event_action, which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_event_action). It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or situations where this tool should be avoided. The only implied usage is 'when you want to monitor debug events,' but no explicit recommendations or prohibitions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions execution but lacks details on side effects (e.g., script may modify memory, halt target), required permissions, or timeout behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single paragraph with args list; concise and no redundant info. Could front-load key action more explicitly, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a script execution tool, description omits crucial context: what happens on timeout, script errors, return value structure (despite output schema existent), and constraints. Incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning for both parameters (script path, timeout with default). However, lacks details like path format, error handling, or in-depth explanation beyond basic purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it executes TRACE32 PRACTICE (.cmm) script files. Specific verb+resource, but does not distinguish from siblings like 'run_practice' or 'execute_command'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Implied usage for running scripts, but no exclusions or comparisons provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the tool shows information but does not state whether it is read-only, has side effects, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise and well-structured with an 'Args' section and a 'Returns' note. It front-loads the main purpose, though slightly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low parameter count and simple behavior, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context to both parameters, including examples for 'section' and the behavior when empty. This adds value beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes MAP files for memory layout, section sizes, and symbol addresses. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'analyze_elf' by focusing on MAP files, but could be more explicit about the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_elf' or other analysis tools. It lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states what it returns but does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, required state, side effects, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (two sections) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about typical use cases or behavioral constraints. Could mention return format or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds value by explaining the parameter: 'Task name or ID. Empty = all tasks.' This clarifies usage beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get stack information for OS tasks', which is a clear verb+resource. It implies a distinct purpose from siblings like get_task_list or get_callstack, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_callstack or get_task_list. The description does not mention conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, permissions, error handling, or persistence of changes. For a mutation tool affecting system state, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured parameter and return notes. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be more detailed without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (modifying system options) and lack of annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. It omits when this tool is appropriate, what dedicated tools exist, and any behavioral expectations beyond a vague 'Confirmation' return.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides the only semantics. It offers example values for both parameters (e.g., option names and values), adding some meaning beyond bare schema. However, it does not explain constraints or valid ranges per option.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a specific SYStem.Option value') and identifies itself as a generic fallback for options not covered by dedicated tools. This provides good clarity on what the tool does and its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it's for settings not covered by dedicated tools, giving a general usage criterion. However, it does not list which dedicated tools exist or explicitly state when to prefer them, leaving gaps in decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'write directly' but fails to clarify important traits such as caching behavior, permissions required, or whether the write is atomic. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single-purpose opening line and a clear list of parameters and return value. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral details makes it less complete than it could be, especially without annotations to supplement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing examples and details for parameters (e.g., address format, value format, width options). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Write a value directly to a memory address using Data.Set', specifying the resource (memory address) and the method (Data.Set). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like write_memory, which also writes to memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 over alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or how to decide between this and similar write tools. The usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Delete a breakpoint' and returns 'Confirmation of deletion', with no mention of side effects, permissions, or restrictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise with two main sentences and a clear Args/Returns structure. It front-loads the purpose. Slight overhead from labeling but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and a single required param. Description covers the basics but lacks details on output format or conditions. Adequate but not enriched.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'address' can be an address or symbol name, and that it refers to the breakpoint to delete. For a single param with 0% schema description coverage, this is helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'breakpoint', and specifies that it works at an address or symbol name. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_breakpoint or clear_all_breakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clear_all_breakpoints or toggle_breakpoint. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description. It only states that commands are executed and returns success/error, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, risk of crashes, or any restrictions. For a highly powerful tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The args/returns section is clearly separated. Slightly verbose in examples, but overall well-structured and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers return values and basic usage. However, it lacks behavioral details like connection requirements, synchronicity, or timeouts. For a generic executor, this is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 adds a basic explanation ('TRACE32 command string to execute'), but this is minimal. No additional guidance on format, quoting, or environment is given, which is adequate but not excellent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute any TRACE32 PRACTICE command string' with concrete examples, making the purpose and scope unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the most flexible, catch-all option.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it as the 'most flexible tool' and implies it can be used for any command, but it does not explicitly advise when to avoid it (e.g., when a specialized tool exists). No explicit when-not or alternative comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer best practices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It mentions it returns a hex dump but lacks details on side effects, read-only guarantee, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no wasted words, uses a clear parameter list format, and front-loads the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality and parameters, but lacks context about when to use versus siblings and does not mention potential errors or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains each parameter in detail (address as hex or symbol, length in bytes, width options with default, access class prefix) adding significant value beyond the schema with 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reads memory at an address with verb 'Read' and resource 'memory'. It is specific, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like read_memory_cached or read_memory_physical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only explains parameters, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it produces disassembly output using objdump, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, required permissions, or potential side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, front-loading the purpose. It is concise without unnecessary words. A slight improvement could be more explicit separation of the fallback logic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (though details not provided), the description's brief return statement may suffice. However, there are many sibling tools, and the description does not explain how this tool differs from 'get_disassembly' or 'analyze_elf'. It lacks completeness for an agent to choose correctly among similar options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes each parameter: symbol (function name), address (hex), lines (max count, default 50). It also adds fallback logic: address used if symbol is empty. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool disassembles a function or address range from the project ELF file, using objdump. This gives a specific verb and resource, but it does not distinguish it from the sibling 'get_disassembly' which likely performs a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions 'Uses the configured objdump tool', providing context on how disassembly is performed. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_disassembly' or under what conditions it is appropriate. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic action and return value but does not disclose side effects, safety (e.g., whether it is reversible), or requirements (e.g., target must be running).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. Every sentence provides essential information about action and return.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and has an output schema (returns CPU state), the description lacks context such as preconditions (e.g., target must be connected and running) or mention of side effects (e.g., breakpoints retained). It is adequate but not comprehensive given no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but no such information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Stop (break) program execution on the target.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'go' (resume) and 'step' (single step), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to halt vs. using breakpoints or other stop mechanisms. No context about prerequisites or when not to use is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Reset the target CPU' and mentions a return value, but omits details such as whether it is a soft/hard reset, side effects, or what happens to the CPU state. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every word is earned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate for a simple action but lacks behavioral context (e.g., reset type, effects on breakpoints or state). It meets the minimum but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to clarify parameters. The phrase 'target CPU' adds implicit context that the tool acts on the currently selected CPU, which is useful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Reset the target CPU', which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'bmc_reset' (for BMC) and 'set_reset_behavior' (configuration), so the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when a simple CPU reset is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it displays a chart but does not specify whether it is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or resource impact beyond the stated display action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three sentences plus a return note, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema existing, the description covers the essential purpose and a prerequisite. However, it could provide more context about the output format, data scope, or relationship to tracing workflow. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter details; it mentions the return type briefly. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool displays a profile chart from recorded trace data, showing instruction execution statistics per function. It is distinct from sibling tools like trace_start or trace_stop, and the verb 'Display' combined with 'profile chart' gives a specific action and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires trace data to have been recorded first') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bmc_profile_chart) or when not to use it. No explicit context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or preconditions for disabling hardware outputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences and a returns line. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral nuance (e.g., confirmation details, any hardware impact). It meets minimum viability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it does not contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Disable WatchPin output hardware' and 'Deactivates all WatchPin outputs.' The verb is specific and the resource is identified, distinguishing it from siblings like watchpin_enable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., watchpin_enable, watchpin_configure). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, prerequisites (e.g., existence of ELF file), or potential side effects. It only mentions using readelf and returning output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence explaining the tool, followed by a parameter and return description. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no required params) and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by clarifying prerequisites or output format beyond 'ELF analysis output'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the single parameter 'detail' by listing four specific valid values ('headers', 'sections', 'symbols', 'size') beyond the schema's type and default. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it analyzes ELF file structure using readelf, specifying it inspects headers, sections, symbols, or size. This distinguishes it from sibling tool analyze_map, which likely deals with memory map analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting ELF file structure, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_map) or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains what A-to-B mode does (counts only between markers) and that markers are set via set_breakpoint. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., does it reset the counter?), required permissions, or what happens if no markers are set. The transparency is adequate but not deep.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at four sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It avoids unnecessary words and uses a clean structure with separate paragraphs for description and arguments. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (a toggle with a dependency on breakpoints), the description covers the basic workflow. It mentions the prerequisite (set breakpoints) and has an output schema indicated. However, it lacks details on default state, error handling, and what 'Confirmation' looks like. Overall adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining both parameters: counter (with example 'M1CNT') and enabled (True/False to enable/disable). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could specify format constraints for counter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: enabling or disabling A-to-B mode on a BMC counter. It provides the specific verb ('Enable or disable') and resource ('BMC counter'). While it distinguishes from siblings by referencing set_breakpoint, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other bmc_* tools, but the purpose is still very clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions using set_breakpoint to set markers, which gives context on when to use this tool (after markers are set). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., counter must exist), or alternatives. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the output includes key fields (names, IDs, states, priorities), which is useful. However, it does not clarify if the operation is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or other potential side effects. The prerequisite is noted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It provides the main fields returned. However, it could briefly hint at the output format or behavior (e.g., blocking vs non-blocking) for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Baseline is 3, and no additional value is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the list of OS tasks/threads, specifying the verb 'Get' and resource. It mentions the return fields (names, IDs, states, priorities), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_task_stack, which could cause ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('requires OS-awareness configured'), which gives usage context. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_callstack for stack trace) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states that a breakpoint is set and returns confirmation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it halts execution), permissions needed, or constraints like maximum breakpoints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a clean docstring with front-loaded purpose, followed by parameter details and return note. It is concise, with no extraneous information, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, parameters with semantics, and return type. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to the many sibling tools, slightly reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for each parameter: address as hex or symbol, type with valid values ('program', 'read', 'write', 'readwrite'), and impl with options ('auto', 'soft', 'hard'), along with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a breakpoint at the specified address or symbol', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_data_breakpoint, set_conditional_breakpoint, etc., which are specialized variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling breakpoint tools (e.g., set_data_breakpoint, set_conditional_breakpoint). The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists event types and command format, but does not state effects like overwriting previous actions, required permissions, error behavior for invalid commands, or side effects on debugging state. The behavior beyond setting is largely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, around 6 lines, with structured sections (description, args, returns). It avoids redundancy. However, the returns section is minimal ('Confirmation') and could be more descriptive without adding length. Overall efficient but not perfectly compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the main purpose, event options, and command format. The output schema exists but is not detailed in description; 'Confirmation' suffices. Missing prerequisites or error handling, but for a straightforward action tool, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving descriptions empty. The tool description compensates excellently by explicitly listing valid event values ('break', 'go', 'reset', 'power') and providing command examples. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter semantics clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a command to execute on a specific event, with verb 'Set' and resources 'event' and 'command'. It provides examples like 'run a script when target halts'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools that also handle events (e.g., enable_event_notifications), though the purpose is generally clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for automating responses to debugger events, giving examples for break, go, reset, power events. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like set_action_breakpoint or run_cmm_script. The context is present but lacks explicit exclusions or guidance for sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only notes it writes a value and returns confirmation. No disclosure of side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with main action. Structured Args/Returns sections add value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with output schema, description covers return value and parameter examples. Lacks list of all valid register names but sufficient for common use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds examples for register names ('PC', 'SP', 'R0') and clarifies value type beyond schema. With 0% schema coverage, this provides useful guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Write a value to a CPU register', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_register by implying write operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like write_memory or write_variable. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states it 'aborts immediately' and returns confirmation, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., state of the debugger afterward, whether it is safe to call at any time, or if resources are cleaned up). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences and a 'Returns' line. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, single action), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, that it stops execution immediately, and that it returns a confirmation. No additional details are needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (none needed). The description adds value by mentioning the return value 'Confirmation,' which goes beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and this meets it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'aborts the currently running PRACTICE script' and 'stops the active .cmm script execution immediately,' which succinctly defines the verb ('abort') and the resource ('the running PRACTICE script'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'run_cmm_script' and 'run_practice'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., only valid when a script is running). The usage is implied but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. While it mentions using a 'configured clean command' and returns 'success/failure status', it does not explicitly state that this operation is destructive (e.g., deletes build artifacts), nor does it indicate any required permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and including return information. Every sentence is necessary and enhances clarity without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the core action and return type. However, it omits important context about the destructive nature of the operation and any environmental prerequisites, which limits completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by noting the return value ('Clean output with success/failure status'), which is not part of the schema. This is adequate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Clean the project build artifacts using the configured clean command.' It uses a specific verb ('clean') and resource ('project build artifacts'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'build_project'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_project' or other sibling tools. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description indicates a destructive action (clearing) and returns 'Confirmation', but lacks details on side effects, permissions required, or behavior when called with no message displayed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, effect, and return value. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and has no parameters, the description does not explain when to use it, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, or what the confirmed return looks like. The output schema is mentioned but not detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Clear the TRACE32 message line' and 'Removes any displayed message from the status bar.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message and get_message_line.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied (clearing the message line), but no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only mentions returning state info, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether it affects target execution. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and a bullet list of return values. Front-loaded and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It lists possible states proactively, adding value beyond the schema. No gaps for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter info because none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional detail is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the CPU/target execution state and lists possible return values (running, stopped, power-down, etc.), making the verb+resource obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_all_cores_state by focusing on the state of a single CPU/target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'status', 'halt', or 'go'. It lacks context for when this read-only state retrieval is appropriate, especially given many state-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions synchronous execution and timeout, but does not detail side effects, error handling, or permissions. Some transparency but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences plus a structured Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool and presence of an output schema, the description covers the return value and timeout. Minor missing context about error handling or path resolution, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: script path (absolute/relative to TRACE32) and timeout (with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a PRACTICE (.cmm) script and waits for completion. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'run_cmm_script'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_cmm_script' or 'abort_practice'. The description implies usage for synchronous script execution but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the return type (table of step modes with descriptions) but does not explicitly indicate that the operation is safe/read-only or if any side effects occur. For a listing tool, this is minimal but acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, and includes a 'Returns' section. It is front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly more structured, but no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, presence of output schema, and simple listing functionality, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return structure. However, it does not mention prerequisites or that it's a read-only operation, but for a simple list tool it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information beyond the empty schema, but no additional meaning is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all supported step modes and their behavior.' The verb 'list' specifies the action, and 'step modes' identifies the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'step' which performs a step action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the tool should be used before stepping to see available modes or that it is a read-only reference. Given many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It states the tool is a lookup returning address and access info, which implies a read operation. However, it does not mention what happens if the symbol is not found, any prerequisites (e.g., program halted), or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with an Args section and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, lookup operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about error behavior (e.g., symbol not found) and the format of the returned address and access info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter name, type (string), and examples (e.g., 'main', 'g_counter'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema alone. The examples clarify acceptable values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Look up a debug symbol), the resource (by its name), and the outcome (get its address). It distinguishes from the sibling tool symbol_by_address which uses a different lookup method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like symbol_by_address or other symbol-related tools. The description only explains what it does, not in what context it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (clear/reset) and return (confirmation), but it omits behavioral details such as side effects, blocking nature, or required state (e.g., trace must be stopped).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences plus a return line. Every part serves a purpose, with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters, and an output schema exists. However, the description could provide more context about when to clear the buffer in the trace workflow, such as usage before a new trace session.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema covers 100% of the (nonexistent) parameters. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable since there are none; thus, baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool clears the trace buffer and resets it for fresh recording. It uses a specific verb (clear) and resource (trace buffer), distinguishing it from related tools like trace_start or trace_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for resetting the buffer before a new recording, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites (e.g., trace must be stopped).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (write) and return (confirmation of bytes written), but it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., target halted, address validity), or warnings about destructive writes. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single-line purpose, followed by a structured list of parameters and return. Every sentence is necessary, and there is no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description provides purpose, parameters, and return but lacks prerequisites, error conditions, or usage context (e.g., when the target must be in a specific state). It is adequate but not complete for a write operation with safety implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section adds significant value by explaining that address can be a hex string or symbol name, data must be a hex string of bytes, width defaults to 32 bits, and access is a class prefix. This is clear and goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though some constraints (e.g., data length, width power-of-2) are not detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Write data to target memory at a given address,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_memory' (read) and 'write_register' (register vs memory).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool should be used when writing to memory, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., write_register or write_variable). No exclusions or context are provided, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or error handling. The description suggests a read-only operation but does not confirm safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences covering purpose, usage examples, parameter, and return value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, the parameter, and the return format. Minor missing details like error behavior could be added but are not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for the single parameter 'expression' by explaining it is a TRACE32 PRACTICE function or expression. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it evaluates TRACE32 PRACTICE functions or expressions, with specific examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic evaluation tool for querying system state, hardware info, or computing values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool is useful for querying system state, hardware info, or computing values, providing implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus more specific sibling tools like read_register or read_variable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation ('view') but does not explicitly state side effects or safety. It mentions that an empty parameter opens a general view, which adds some behavioral context. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no fluff. It communicates purpose, parameter, and return value in three short sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and return. It could elaborate on what 'peripheral register values' entails, but it is sufficient given the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'peripheral' accepts a name or address and that empty opens a general view. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool views peripheral register contents, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like get_register_view (general registers) and read_memory (raw memory).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_register or get_register_view. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that execution is started and a confirmation returned, without disclosing potential side effects (e.g., breakpoint interactions) or whether the tool is safe to call in any state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence defining purpose and return, containing no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and a simple action, the description covers the basic behavior and return value. However, it lacks nuance about when the tool is applicable (e.g., only when halted) and the exact format of the confirmation (output schema not provided).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details as none exist. A score of 4 reflects the baseline for no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Start or continue program execution on the target,' which is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like step or halt.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for running the program freely but does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives such as step for single-stepping or run_to_line for targeting a specific line.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the task-specific trigger and requirement for OS-awareness, but omits side effects (e.g., whether execution halts), persistence, or relationship to other breakpoint types.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: purpose line, prerequisite, args, returns. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameters are well-described and an output schema exists, the description lacks details on runtime behavior (e.g., does hitting the breakpoint halt execution?) and removal methods. For a 2-param tool with no annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds rich semantics beyond the schema: 'address' can be an address or symbol name; 'task' can be name, ID, or magic number. This is critical since schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set a task-specific breakpoint that only triggers for a specific OS task/thread.' This distinguishes it from sibling breakpoint tools (e.g., set_breakpoint, set_conditional_breakpoint) by specifying task-specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires OS-awareness to be configured') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool shows the MCDS state window with settings, buffer status, and configuration, and returns state information. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires a specific trace state, or has any side effects. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the resource and what is shown. However, given the presence of many sibling trace tools, a brief note on typical use cases would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves current MCDS trace state and configuration, specifying a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('MCDS trace state and configuration'). It distinguishes itself from other trace tools by focusing on state/configuration rather than data operations or clearing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling trace tools (e.g., trace_list, trace_start). The description lacks context for choosing this over alternatives, which is a significant gap given the extensive sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get current') and lists returned information. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or safe, nor does it mention any side effects or permissions. The description is adequate but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly more detailed about potential output format or edge cases, but the output schema likely covers those details. Overall, it is nearly complete for the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the current WatchPin configuration and state, specifying it shows which WatchPins are enabled, their trigger conditions, and polarity. Among sibling tools like watchpin_configure and watchpin_enable, it distinctly serves as a read-only state retrieval, avoiding confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting WatchPin state but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other watchpin-related tools (e.g., configure, disable). No alternatives or when-not scenarios are provided, which is acceptable for a simple query tool but leaves room for improvement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It discloses default behavior (address empty = current PC) and 'approximate' line count, but doesn't state read-only nature or potential side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise three-sentence structure with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, and parameter descriptions are clearly separated. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, description covers return value adequately. It explains both parameters and their defaults. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted) but is mostly complete for a read-only tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: address as start address/symbol with default to PC, and lines as approximate count with default 30. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a disassembly listing at a specified address or current PC. It specifies mixed source and assembly output and distinguishes from siblings like 'disassemble' by emphasizing mixed source/assembly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'disassemble'. The description vaguely implies it's for understanding CPU execution but lacks alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly indicates a read operation and outlines returned fields, but does not cover edge cases (e.g., no script running) or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown). Description covers the main purpose and return values, but omits context like required connection or debugger state. Adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output includes active state, script name, and current line, going beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the state of a running PRACTICE script, specifying exactly what information is provided (active status, script name, current line). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_state' and 'run_practice' by targeting PRACTICE scripts specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_state' or 'status'. The description implies usage for checking PRACTICE script state, but lacks 'when not to use' or prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debug session).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the action and return state, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., behavior at top-level frame) or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero unnecessary words. All information is relevant and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's core functionality: stepping out of a function. No gaps for a simple step-out action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline is 4 due to zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'step out' of the current function by returning to its caller. It uses precise verb 'return to its caller' and resource 'current function', distinguishing it from siblings like 'step' (step into) or 'go' (run freely).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like step or go_till. The description implies usage for stepping out, but no 'when not to' or comparison to related tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior (sets temporary breakpoint, resumes, stops on hit) but omits details like behavior on unreachable lines, multiple hits, or interference with existing breakpoints. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a brief overview followed by structured args. No unnecessary words. However, the 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant as it repeats info that could be in the schema, but it's acceptable given schema lacks descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers the main behavior. An output schema exists, so return value details are sufficient. Could mention differentiation from similar siblings like go_till, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear parameter explanations for file and line, including examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'run until' and the resource 'specific source file line'. It explains the mechanism of setting a temporary breakpoint and resuming execution, which distinguishes it from siblings like set_breakpoint or go alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (to continue execution to a specific line) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_temporary_breakpoint followed by go, or step. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a fuzzy match behavior ('at or near'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a clear structure for arguments and returns. No extraneous words are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential behavior of the tool: input format and output expectation. While there is an output schema available (not shown), the description's mention of 'Symbol name at or near the given address' is sufficient for a simple lookup tool. Minor gaps in edge cases (e.g., if address not found) are acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for the 'address' parameter. The description adds significant value by specifying the format ('hex string') and giving an example, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'look up' and the resource 'debug symbol by its address' to obtain the symbol name. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'symbol_by_name' which looks up by name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or context for choosing between 'symbol_by_address' and 'symbol_by_name', leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., cores must be in sync mode), side effects, or error conditions. Only mentions the SYnch command and return confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured with separate sections for description, args, and returns; no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the core functionality and parameter well, but lacks details on preconditions and error handling for the sync operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Provides clear, complete descriptions for the single parameter 'action' with all three valid values (go, break, step) and their meanings, supplementing the minimal schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool synchronizes Go/Step/Break across multiple cores, distinguishing it from single-core sibling tools like step, go, and halt.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for multi-core synchronization in SMP or AMP mode but does not explicitly contrast with single-core alternatives or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions it toggles state and returns new state, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if breakpoint doesn't exist) or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one-sentence purpose, clear args/returns. No filler; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with two parameters and an output schema (not shown). Description covers core behavior but could elaborate on the return value format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: address can be an address or symbol name, and enabled true/false toggle. Both parameters are clearly explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it enables or disables a breakpoint without deleting it, distinguishing it from tools like delete_breakpoint and set_breakpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_breakpoint or delete_breakpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses activation behavior and return value but omits side effects (e.g., idempotency, error states) and prerequisites. Basic but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (3 sentences plus returns line), front-loaded with the key action, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks workflow context (e.g., whether watchpin_configure should precede this). Could better indicate typical usage sequence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so per guidelines baseline is 4. Description does not add parameter information but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Enable WatchPin output hardware' and explains what activation does. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like watchpin_disable and watchpin_configure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether configuration is needed first or what happens if already enabled. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the required halted state and that it writes an integer, float, or string. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences of purpose and precondition, followed by concise param and return descriptions. No unnecessary words, and key info is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers purpose, precondition, and param formats, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., if variable is undefined or read-only) and impact on target state. Output schema exists, so return info is covered, but more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical semantics by explaining that 'name' is the variable name as in source code and 'value' can be integer, float, or string representation. This goes beyond the schema's bare type string, though format details are lacking.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Write a value to a C/C++ variable on the target', which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_variable (read) and write_register (write to register) by explicitly mentioning C/C++ variable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a key precondition: 'The target must be halted (stopped) for variable writes to work.' However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like var_set or write_register, nor does it specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description discloses the mounting behavior and prerequisite, but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise at about 5 sentences, front-loading purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and an output schema mentioned, the description covers purpose, usage order, parameter semantics, and return value, making it fully complete for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter with clear explanation in the Args section (number of cores with examples). Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with purpose and examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool configures multicore topology for AURIX devices, specifying it mounts cores for shared resources. It distinguishes from siblings like sync_cores or select_core, though could more explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the tool must be called before SYStem.Up in multicore scenarios, giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the underlying SYStem.DETECT.CPU command and supported families, but does not disclose side effects, state requirements (e.g., must be connected?), or what happens on failure. This lack of detail limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences plus a return line. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema (context signal indicates has_output_schema: true), the description is largely complete. It mentions returned information (type and stepping). However, missing prerequisite context like required device connection state slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters (input schema empty), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly omits any parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool auto-detects the connected AURIX device, uses SYStem.DETECT.CPU, and works with specific families. The verb 'detect' and resource 'CPU' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like connect or get_chip_info by focusing on automatic detection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for automatic chip detection but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_chip_info or connect. No when-not or prerequisite context is provided, which is a gap for an AI agent deciding between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains what data is queried (status, PC) and that it returns a table, but omits behavioral details like whether it is safe to call while cores are running or if it halts them. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single clear sentence followed by a brief elaboration and a one-line summary of returns. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an indicated output schema (table), the description covers the essential purpose and return type. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., connection or multicore state) but is otherwise sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable since none are needed. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves execution state of all CPU cores, listing specific data (running/stopped status, PC value). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that may target individual cores or other state aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it is useful for multicore debugging to understand global system state, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like get_state or get_run_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It states what is combined and notes runtime availability, but does not declare side effects (likely read-only). Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences plus returns line, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, description lists included components. Could mention return format, but output schema covers that. Minor gap: no mention of performance or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters in schema, so description adds no param info but is not required. Baseline high due to trivial coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states it retrieves run/halt statistics and lists specific components (CPU state, function, source location, runtime). Clearly distinguishes from siblings that provide individual pieces like get_state, get_current_function, get_source_location.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for quick aggregated view, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. Siblings provide more granular data, but guidance is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation returning formatted options but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences and a Returns line. No extraneous content; front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return value. Could mention that it is a safe read operation, but overall complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds no param info, which is appropriate. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the current system options and configuration' and specifies that it shows all active SYStem.Option settings including examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_system_option.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for reading system options but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_system_option. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Notes timeout info but does not specify if breakpoint is removed after hit or if state is modified. Partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three lines covering purpose, parameter, and returns. No fluff, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one param and output schema indicated. Description covers essential aspects, though behavioral details (e.g., breakpoint removal) are missing. Good for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for 'address': accepts both address and symbol, provides examples. Adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it runs until a specific address is reached, acting as a temporary breakpoint. Differentiates from siblings like 'go' (no stop condition) and 'set_temporary_breakpoint' (explicitly calls it temporary).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for reaching an address, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like 'set_temporary_breakpoint' or 'run_to_line'. No guidance on when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains that peripheral modules are suspended when CPU halts, and the effect of enabling/disabling. However, it does not mention persistence, permissions, or side effects, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by a detailed explanation, then parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single boolean parameter and an output schema already defined, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, behavior, parameter meaning, and confirmation of return. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'enabled' parameter: 'True to enable peripheral suspend, False to disable'. This adds meaningful semantic clarity beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable automatic peripheral suspend when CPU halts', specifying the exact action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'suspend_peripheral', which may have a similar purpose, so it loses one point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool: to prevent watchdog timeouts and timer overflows during debugging. It provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'suspend_peripheral'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the return values but does not describe side effects, permissions required, or whether a connection is needed. The transparency is adequate for a simple read-only tool but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and return values without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the main action and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the returned information. It does not detail the exact format or possible values, but for a status-check tool, this is acceptable and relatively complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by explaining what the output contains, exceeding the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving connection status and TRACE32 system information. It specifies exact return values (connection state, TRACE32 version, target CPU state), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_state or get_all_cores_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_state or connect. The context implies it is a general status check, but the description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it records read accesses and returns confirmation, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., trace must be enabled) or potential side effects like buffer overwrites. Adequate but lacking behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences plus an Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence earns its place. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is largely complete. It covers the parameter well and explains the return. Minor missing behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites) prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds value beyond the schema's plain 'string' type for the variable parameter. It provides examples ('myVar', '0xD0000100') and explains it can be a name or address, which aids correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Configure data read trace') and the resource ('on a variable'), and explicitly says it records read accesses. This distinguishes it from siblings like trace_data_write (write trace) and trace_list (list traces).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an argument with example formats but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the precondition (halted) and implies a read-only operation (viewing). However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention permissions, or describe performance implications. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a line detailing capabilities, a precondition, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Front-loads essential information without extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (mentioned but not shown), the description adequately summarizes returns ('Formatted variable view showing all fields and values'). It covers the main usage scenario and precondition. Could add error cases, but overall it is sufficient for a view tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, but the description compensates with concrete examples (e.g., 'myStruct', 'array[0]', 'pTask->state', '%SpotLight'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: viewing a C/C++ variable, structure, array, or expression with full expansion. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_variable by stating 'Much more detailed than read_variable', making its specific purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a key precondition: 'The target must be halted.' It also hints at when to use this over read_variable (for detailed expansion). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives like evaluate or var_set, so guidance is partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only states 'pulse' and returns 'Confirmation,' omitting details like side effects, safety, or authorization needs. For a mutation-like action, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args list and Returns line. Every sentence is essential, front-loaded with the main action, and no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (pulse a pin) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Confirmation'), the description is fairly complete. It could mention that it's intended for testing only, but overall it's sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: pin is 'WatchPin number' and duration_ms is 'Pulse duration in milliseconds (default: 10)'. This explains the parameters well beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manually pulse a WatchPin for testing.' It distinguishes from sibling watchpin tools (configure, enable, disable, etc.) by specifying it's for verifying hardware connections before automatic triggers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context: 'Useful for verifying WatchPin hardware connections before setting up automatic triggers.' This implies when to use it (testing) but does not explicitly exclude other uses or name alternatives, so it's clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It describes configuring counters, running target briefly, and reporting results. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. Adds some value beyond empty schema but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two short paragraphs plus structured Args and Returns. Front-loaded with primary action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers core functionality, parameters, and return value. Lacks prerequisites or state requirements but is otherwise complete for a cache analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates with explicit Args section explaining each parameter: function (default current execution point) and run_duration_ms (default 1000 ms). Adds significant meaning beyond names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Run a quick cache performance analysis' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like bmc_configure and bmc_read by focusing on cache hit/miss ratio analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context ('Useful for identifying cache bottlenecks') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to sibling tools. Implies usage but does not offer exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool establishes a connection, specifies the return value ('Connection status message with TRACE32 version info'), and lists configurable parameters. However, it does not mention whether the connection is persistent, any side effects, or error behavior, which would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary, then an Args section listing parameters with defaults, and a Returns section. All information is functional with no fluff. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' formatting is slightly verbose for an MCP description, but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a connection tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. The presence of sibling tools like 'disconnect' and many operational tools provides context, and the description aligns well. It could benefit from mentioning that connection is required before using most other tools, but the name and purpose make that implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in the schema), but the tool description provides clear docstrings for each parameter: node (host address, default from config or 'localhost'), port (API port, default from config or 20000), protocol (TCP or UDP, default from config or 'TCP'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Connect to a running TRACE32 PowerView instance.' The verb 'connect' combined with the specific target 'TRACE32 PowerView instance' leaves no ambiguity. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'disconnect' and other operational tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage as an initial setup step before other TRACE32 operations, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'disconnect' for teardown). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are provided, but the context of siblings suggests it is the entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Returns a confirmation message, but no details on side effects or connection state changes beyond that. No annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words, directly to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completely adequate for a zero-parameter tool with output schema. Clearly the inverse of connect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so description doesn't need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (disconnect) and the resource (TRACE32 PowerView), distinguishing it from connect and other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is obvious, but no explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives (e.g., after connect). Implied usage is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the return value includes both enabled and disabled breakpoints, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences clearly stating purpose and return value. No unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded with the primary action. Excellent structure for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and is a straightforward read operation, the description is complete. It explains what it returns and the nuance of counting all breakpoints. The output schema likely covers the technical return type, so no further detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by clarifying that the count includes both enabled and disabled breakpoints, which goes beyond the schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is high, and this description meets it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'total number of breakpoints currently set'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_breakpoints, which lists breakpoints rather than returning a count.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when a count is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or context are given, relying on the agent to infer from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior: 'Function name (or address if no debug symbols)', which is sufficient for this simple query. No side effects are mentioned, but none expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with only two sentences. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns, satisfying the needs for a simple query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). The description adds no parameter information, which is fine since there are none. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get the name of the function') and the resource ('the CPU is currently executing'). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_callstack or get_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is self-explanatory, but no when-not or alternatives are mentioned, making the usage guidelines minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it sets a conditional breakpoint and returns confirmation, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., if the breakpoint replaces an existing one), prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted), or limits (e.g., max breakpoints).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose. The Args section is well-structured with bullet points for each parameter, and the Returns line is concise. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, but a known output schema, the description covers the essential information: purpose, parameter syntax, and return type. It does not discuss error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., connection required), which are common for debug tools, but the current description is reasonably complete for a simple breakpoint operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides concrete examples for address (e.g., 'main', '0x80001000'), condition in both HLL and TRACE32 syntax, and explains the language parameter. This helps the agent understand parameter formats and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets a conditional breakpoint that stops only when a condition is true. The verb 'Set' and resource 'conditional breakpoint' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like set_breakpoint, set_count_breakpoint, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs other breakpoint types (e.g., simple breakpoint, count breakpoint). However, the name and description imply it is for conditional halting, and the examples provide context. A brief comparison would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral details. It mentions returning a new program counter but does not disclose side effects like state changes, breakpoint interactions, or error conditions. Partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose, followed by structured args and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and a documented return, the description covers essentials. Missing context about potential invalid mode values or prerequisites, but still usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the three step modes ('into', 'over', 'out') with their meanings, adding significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Single-step program execution', which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'go' (continuous execution) by the word 'single-step'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'go' or 'step_mode_list'. The usage is implied by the name and description, but lacks context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses how the peripheral responds to CPU halt for each mode ('hard', 'soft', 'none'), which is crucial behavioral information. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so effectively. It could mention that the CPU must be halted or other side effects, but the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence overview followed by clear bullet-style parameter explanations. Every sentence is informative and no unnecessary text. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, then details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (confirmation), the description covers purpose and parameters well. It lacks information about error conditions, requirements (e.g., debugger state), and potential side effects, but for a peripheral configuration tool it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'peripheral' with example names, and 'suspend_mode' with each possible value and its exact behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure suspend mode for a specific peripheral module.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the explanation of the three suspend modes distinguishes it from generic tools. However, there is a sibling 'set_peripheral_suspend' that may overlap, but the description here is self-contained and clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_peripheral_suspend'. There is no statement of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it. The parameter documentation helps with usage but not selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions setting a breakpoint that controls recording but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether it is destructive. The behavior is moderately clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured with a clear summary, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameter details, and return type. Minor omission: no mention of whether trace must already be configured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains the address parameter can be a function name, symbol, or address with EXIT syntax, and details each trigger_type value ('stop', 'enable', 'disable'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and resource 'trace trigger breakpoint', with an explanation of controlling trace recording start/stop. This distinguishes it from sibling trace tools like trace_start, trace_stop, and trace_clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the tool's function but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like trace_start or set_breakpoint. No usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the mutation effect ('Set') and the halted requirement, but does not detail side effects, memory implications, or reversibility. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds valuable examples. It is well-structured and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the precondition, supported variable types, and return type ('Confirmation of variable modification'). It does not detail error conditions or edge cases, but for a simple set operation, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by providing concrete examples for name (e.g., 'counter', 'myStruct.field') and value (e.g., '42', '0xFF'), clarifying the types and usage beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set a C/C++ variable to a new value on the target.' It specifies the resource (C/C++ variable), the target state (halted), and distinguishes from siblings like write_variable by focusing on assignable lvalues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a precondition ('The target must be halted') and the scope ('Supports any assignable lvalue'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like write_variable or data_set, nor does it mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the configuration action and return value, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., hardware availability) or error handling. Adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. It is concise, front-loaded with a summary, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple configuration tool, the description covers main behavior and return type. It could mention error cases (e.g., invalid pin), but given the output schema presence and straightforward nature, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains each trigger condition ('break', 'go', etc.) and defines polarity ('active high', 'active low'). Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Configure a WatchPin to trigger on specific events,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like watchpin_enable and watchpin_disable by focusing on configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated. No guidance on when to use this vs. watchpin_enable or other WatchPin tools is provided, leaving it to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the mapping and accumulation process, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting previous configurations), required permissions, or what happens on invalid values. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections (description, Args, Returns), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, how to use it, and what parameters mean. However, it omits error handling and configuration persistence details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It lists example values for counter (M1CNT, etc.) and event (CYCLECOUNT, etc.), adding context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify allowed formats or case sensitivity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure a BenchMark Counter to count a specific hardware event.' It specifies the action (configure), resource (BenchMark Counter), and distinguishes from siblings like bmc_read (which reads after halting).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear workflow: configure then read with bmc_read after halting. It implies when to use this tool (for configuration) and gives guidance on reading results, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the destructive action (clears all counter values to zero) and the purpose (fresh measurement). However, it does not mention side effects or necessary conditions, though for a simple reset tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and result (confirmation). It could mention more about the return format, but for a simple reset it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (0 params), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resets all BenchMark Counters to zero for a fresh measurement. The verb 'reset' and resource 'BenchMark Counters' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like bmc_read or bmc_configure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (for a fresh measurement), but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it executes a build command and returns output with success/failure. With no annotations, it covers the main behavioral traits, though could mention prerequisites or potential side effects like time consumption.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three clear sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a build operation, though could elaborate on the build process scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; description adds context by specifying the build command source (debugforge.toml [build]), which goes beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it builds the project using the configured build command from debugforge.toml, distinguishing it from siblings like build_flash_run or clean_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when build is configured, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like build_flash_run, and no mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the input and return structure but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. For a read operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus arg/return notes. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all needed information: what it does, input format, and output content. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for the 'name' parameter. The description adds significant meaning by stating 'Skill name or filename (e.g., 'stack-overflow' or 'stack-overflow.md')', providing format variations and examples. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the full content of a specific debug skill. It identifies the resource and action distinctly, and the name distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_debug_skills' and 'search_debug_skills'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need full content of a known skill but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_debug_skills or search_debug_skills. No when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the target must be halted and that it returns local variables per frame. However, it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, potential errors if not halted, or other side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three short sentences plus a returns line. Each sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, use case, and output. No redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description covers the essential: what it does, when to use, and what it returns. It does not elaborate on format or limitations, but with an output schema present, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema requires no additional explanation. The description implicitly confirms that no arguments are needed, which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'the call stack with all local variables for each frame'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_callstack' by explicitly mentioning local variables, which is a differentiator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies a prerequisite: 'The target must be halted.' It also gives a use case: 'useful for understanding program state at the point of a breakpoint or crash.' However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the return as a complete formatted register dump. No annotations provided, so the description covers basic behavior. Could mention if it requires a specific CPU state or has performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded description with two short sentences. No unnecessary words, clearly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers functionality well. Could include more about constraints (e.g., target requirement), but adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves the full register view with all CPU registers and flags, organized by type. Distinguishes itself from siblings (read_register, read_registers) by being more comprehensive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly compares with read_register/read_registers, indicating when to use this tool for a full view. Does not specify when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows source with line numbers and requires a halted target, but lacks details on return format, scope of listing, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single paragraph plus concise Args/Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, clear purpose), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the parameter, prerequisite, and return concept. An output schema exists, so return details are not required. A mention of alternative tools would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the single parameter 'address' clearly: 'Address or symbol. Empty = current PC.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition, making it easy for an agent to use correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the source code listing around the current execution point,' specifying the verb and resource. It adds detail about HLL source with line numbers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like disassemble or get_disassembly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the prerequisite 'The target must be halted,' giving clear context for usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined enough to infer when to use this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the basic behavior and return value, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., does it modify breakpoints?), permissions needed, or behavior in edge cases (e.g., no return statement). Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (two sentences plus a return note), front-loads the key behavior, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and return type. However, it could elaborate on what 'State' includes (e.g., registers, locals) to fully cover the output schema context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. As per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information since none exist, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Run to the last instruction of the current function') and the resource ('the current function'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool go_up by noting it stops inside the function. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to reach the return point inside the function) and mentions the alternative go_up. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide exclusions for other sibling tools like go_till or run_to_line.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool saves to a knowledge base and returns a confirmation, but does not disclose if it overwrites existing skills, requires authentication, or other side effects. This is acceptable for a straightforward save operation but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two focused paragraphs. The first states the purpose and usage context, and the second lists parameters in a clear Args format. There is no wasted text; every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 7 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all aspects adequately, including return value. However, it could be more complete by noting whether the tool checks for duplicate names or has any prerequisites (e.g., being connected to a debug session).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter, including name format ('kebab-case'), category options ('memory, fault, peripheral, timing, rtos, general'), and the purpose of keywords, symptoms, etc. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though some descriptions (e.g., keywords) remain brief.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save a new debug skill to the knowledge base.' It specifies the exact resource (debug skill) and action (save), and distinguishes from siblings like list_debug_skills, get_debug_skill, and search_debug_skills by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises when to use the tool: 'Call this after successfully debugging a new type of issue to capture the experience for future reuse.' This provides explicit context, though it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools. However, siblings do not overlap significantly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that it searches multiple fields and returns ranked results, which is helpful. However, it omits potential behaviors like case sensitivity, result limits, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (handling returns), the description sufficiently covers inputs, search scope, and output nature. It could mention any maximum result count or empty result behavior, but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so the tool description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'keywords' as space-separated search terms and giving an example, which is effective.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches debug skills by keywords, specifying it searches through skill names, keywords, categories, and content body. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_debug_skills' (listing all) and 'get_debug_skill' (retrieving a specific one).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (searching by keywords matching symptoms or categories) and provides an example ('HardFault stack crash'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states that subsequent commands target the specified core and returns confirmation with core state. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., must be halted) or side effects on other cores, which could be important for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, followed by Args and Returns sections. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no nested objects), the description covers the core scenario. Output schema exists, so return value is addressed. Missing sibling differentiation but still complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It explains 'core' as a core number (0-based) with examples (0, 1, 2 for TC397), adding practical meaning beyond the schema's type and title alone. Could mention valid range or dependencies but is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool selects the active CPU core for debugging, specifying the verb 'select' and resource 'active core'. Differentiates from sibling tools like configure_multicore, detect_cpu, get_all_cores_state, and sync_cores by focusing on setting the debugger's active context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes usage in multicore setups to switch debugger focus for subsequent commands. Provides enough context for typical use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which are available as siblings like sync_cores or configure_multicore.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes that messages appear in the GUI status bar. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Does not mention side effects like overwriting previous messages or whether it requires special permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short paragraphs plus structured args/returns. Front-loaded with main purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (implied by context), the description covers essential usage. Could mention that it overwrites the previous message, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description compensates by listing text and level purpose and explicitly enumerating allowed levels ('info', 'warning', 'error'), which schema does not restrict.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource ('Display a message in the TRACE32 message line') with specific use cases. Distinguishes from siblings like clear_message and get_message_line.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description mentions appropriate use cases (debugging status, progress updates, user notifications). No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details three mode options with brief explanations, but lacks information on prerequisites, side effects, or state changes beyond the immediate configuration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear top sentence followed by parameter details and return description. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter configuration tool, the description covers the input thoroughly. An output schema exists (not shown), so not explaining return details is acceptable. The description is complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines 'behavior' as a string without descriptions, giving 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by listing the three specific values with explanations, adding rich semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool configures reset behavior for the debugger, specifying verb 'Configure' and resource 'reset behavior'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'reset' which performs a reset, not configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to set reset behavior mode) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'reset' imply for performing a reset, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the key trait: auto-deletes after first hit. It also equates to 'run to this address once', which is helpful. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes, but for a simple mutation, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise: two sentences plus Args/Returns. Front-loaded with purpose ('set a temporary breakpoint that auto-deletes after first hit'). No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter tool and presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description covers the essential behavioral aspect. 'Returns: Confirmation' could be more specific, but the output schema likely fills details. No missing critical info for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage; the parameter 'address' is only typed as string. The description adds 'or symbol name', expanding meaning beyond the schema's 'Address' title. This provides actionable guidance for the agent. A score of 4 reflects good compensation for schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a temporary breakpoint that auto-deletes after first hit, and provides an equivalent phrase 'run to this address once'. This distinguishes it from persistent breakpoints (set_breakpoint) and deletion tools (clear_all_breakpoints, delete_breakpoint). Verb 'set' and resource 'temporary breakpoint' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for one-time hits via its self-deleting nature, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like set_breakpoint or set_conditional_breakpoint. No 'when not to use' guidance is given; usage is inferred but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states the tool records every write access and optionally filters by value. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, side effects (e.g., buffer consumption), or interactions with other trace settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured bullet-like Args list. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, parameter details, and return value. The presence of an output schema and the brief return description suffice for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a detailed Args section for all three parameters, providing format examples and acceptable values (e.g., 'byte', 'word', 'long', 'quad', 'auto' for data_width). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the tool configures a data write trace on a variable, recording every write access. It distinguishes from siblings like trace_data_read, trace_start, etc., by focusing specifically on write access and optional filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for tracing variable writes with optional filtering but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trace_data_read or other trace tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It lists three steps and return type, but does not disclose side effects like whether it clears previous builds, requires a connection, or modifies target state. Basic steps are there, but behavioral context is incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with a header, numbered steps, and separate sections for args and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, steps, parameter, and return value. Missing details on error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., project must be configured). Given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. The 'break_at' parameter is explained with its purpose and default value, adding clear meaning beyond the schema's property definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a full cycle of build, flash, and run to breakpoint, and distinguishes itself as the core 'edit-compile-debug' loop tool. Among siblings like 'build_project' and 'flash_and_run', it uniquely combines all three steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for the complete edit-compile-debug cycle and lists the steps, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or prerequisites. Clear context but lacks exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Discloses it deletes all breakpoints and returns confirmation, but lacks details on side effects, undoability, or prerequisites for a destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence for action, one for usage, one for return value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with no parameters and an output schema (implied). Description fully covers purpose, usage, and return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; baseline score of 4 applies as schema coverage is trivially 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it deletes all breakpoints at once. Distinguishes from siblings like delete_breakpoint (single) and toggle_breakpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this to clean up all breakpoints and let the program run freely,' providing clear usage context but no direct comparison to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the four-step process (flash, reset, set breakpoint, run to breakpoint) and the behavior of the 'break_at' parameter (skip if empty). It mentions returning 'Step-by-step execution results', but does not detail potential side effects (e.g., data loss from flashing) or permissions needed. Overall, it is mostly transparent but lacks some safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, bulleted step list, and separate Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value. The format is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the steps are easy to parse. No unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is only one optional parameter and an output schema exists (covering return format), the description is mostly complete. It explains the composite operation and parameter behavior. However, it does not cover prerequisites (e.g., target must be connected, firmware file must be configured) or error scenarios. Still, for a simple tool with good schema support, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only type, title, and default for 'break_at'. The description adds critical semantics: it clarifies that the parameter is a symbol to break at, explains the default 'main', and states that setting it empty skips the breakpoint step. This information is essential for correct usage and goes well beyond the schema, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Flash firmware to target and run to a breakpoint (default: main).' It breaks down the composite operation into four explicit steps, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle individual operations (e.g., 'reset', 'go', 'set_breakpoint'). The verb 'flash and run' plus the step enumeration leaves no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you want to flash firmware and immediately run to a breakpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like executing separate flash and run commands. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., being connected) or when to avoid this tool (e.g., if you need to run without a breakpoint). The composite nature is mentioned but no comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that this tool lists access classes and returns a table with descriptions. It does not mention side effects or performance, but for a read-only list, the behavioral transparency is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two short sentences and a clear return statement. No unnecessary words or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all available memory access classes', and explains their purpose as prefixes for different memory paths. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_memory variants by focusing on listing classes rather than reading data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you need to know access class prefixes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions loading debug information and returning a confirmation, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting previous symbols or requiring specific permissions. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 4 sentences, front-loading the main function and including an Args/Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single optional parameter and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, parameter behavior, and return type. It is complete enough for effective use, though it could optionally mention symbol replacement behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'elf_path' is the path to an ELF file and that an empty value uses the configured path. This is essential context beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Load' and the resource 'debug symbols from an ELF file', and specifies its purpose for source-level debugging. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_elf' or 'symbol_by_address' which serve different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to load debug symbols) and provides context by noting that if no path is given, it uses a configured path. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools imply it is a prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation returning register name and value, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted) or side effects. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear front-loaded sentence followed by structured args/returns list. Every word adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (true), the description adequately covers the purpose and parameter. It is complete enough for a single-register read operation, though it could note that an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds examples of valid register names (PC, SP, R0, D0, A0) and explains the parameter's purpose, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read a single CPU register by name', specifying the action (read) and resource (single CPU register). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_registers' (plural) by emphasizing 'single'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for reading one register, contrasting with the plural 'read_registers' sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes reading registers and the return format, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or performance implications. Adequate but could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with exactly one line for the purpose, followed by parameter documentation and a return description. No superfluous words, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's functionality well given the presence of an output schema. It explains parameters and return type. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular 'read_register' sibling, which would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that 'names' is a list of register names and that empty/None reads all, and 'core' is a filter for specific units. The schema only provides types and defaults, so the description is essential for correct use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read multiple CPU registers', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_register' (singular) and 'write_register'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (reading multiple registers, with optional filtering by name and core), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'read_register' for single registers or 'get_register_view' for a graphical view. Usage context is clear but missing direct exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description states halt condition but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive nature or error behavior. Adequate but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: action, precondition, parameter details. No wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality. Output schema exists but not shown. Missing details on variable-not-found or target-not-halted scenarios, but minimalism is reasonable for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter 'name' explained with examples ('counter', 'myStruct.field'). Adds meaning beyond schema's generic 'Name' label.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states action: 'Read a C/C++ variable from the target by its symbol name.' Differentiates from siblings like write_variable (write) and read_memory (memory, not variable).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit precondition: 'The target must be halted (stopped) for variable reads to work.' Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but provides necessary context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully explains the behavior: triggers on memory access, optional value matching, and returns confirmation. It is honest and clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with Args/Returns sections. The first sentence captures the essence, and each sentence adds value without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and the basic action. Given the output schema exists (confirmation string), it is sufficiently complete, though could mention if breakpoints are additive or replace existing ones.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds rich meaning to all 4 parameters beyond the schema (e.g., examples for address, enumerated values for access/data_width, empty meaning for data_value). Schema coverage is 0%, so this is critical.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a data breakpoint on memory read/write access, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_breakpoint (code execution) and set_conditional_breakpoint (condition-based).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for memory access breakpoints but does not explicitly contrast with similar breakpoint tools or provide when-to-use/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that standby mode monitors VTREF, can automatically reconnect, and restore debug state. This is good transparency, though it does not mention potential side effects or persistence, which would have merited a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence summary, a brief technical explanation, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral aspects adequately. The presence of an output schema (even if not shown) supports the brevity of the 'Returns: Confirmation' statement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explicitly explains the 'enabled' parameter's meaning: 'True to enable standby mode, False to disable'. This adds clear semantics beyond the schema, which only provides type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool enables/disables standby mode for power cycle detection, with specific behavior mentioned (monitoring VTREF, auto-reconnect, restore debug state). It uses a specific verb+resource pair and is distinct from all sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used for power cycle detection scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to enable vs disable, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternatives. An agent might need additional context to decide when to trigger this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description correctly states the prerequisite and return type, but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. It implies non-destructive behavior but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-liner, followed by explanation, prerequisites, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, prerequisite, parameter behavior, and return expectation. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'counters' parameter with examples and clarifies that an empty array uses all configured counters. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only provides type information without description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it displays a BMC profile chart with counter data mapped to instruction flow, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trace_profile_chart by focusing on BMC counters, and includes prerequisite context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the prerequisite that BMC counters must have been recorded, giving a clear condition for use. However, it does not compare with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool, which is acceptable given the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the operation is read-only (returns formatted dump), describes the output format, and lists default parameter values. However, it does not cover potential side effects (unlikely) or performance implications for large lengths.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct and well-organized, with a brief summary, a comparison to a known tool, and structured Args/Returns sections. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description already covers the return format ('Formatted hex dump with addresses, hex values, and ASCII'). For a 3-parameter tool with no nested objects, this is complete and sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It provides clear explanations: address with example formats, length with default 256, and width with acceptable values (8,16,32,64) and default 32. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves a formatted memory dump (hex + ASCII). The comparison to TRACE32's Data.dump window and the detailed output description ('address, hex values, and ASCII representation') make the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory which likely return raw bytes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for viewing formatted dumps via the TRACE32 analogy, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like read_memory or read_memory_cached. No direct guidance on prerequisites or limiting factors (e.g., address validity, alignment).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses preconditions (halted, symbols loaded) and the return format (file:line and function name). It does not describe error behavior, but the listed conditions are key behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: main purpose, preconditions, and return format. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, preconditions, and returns, leaving no gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description need not add parameter info; it correctly notes no arguments are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current source file and line of the halted CPU', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_current_function or get_callstack. It specifies the condition (halted CPU) and the result (source location and function name).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states explicit preconditions: 'The target must be halted and symbols must be loaded.' While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, this guidance is sufficient for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get the text content'), implying no side effects, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. Given the lack of annotations, a more explicit safety statement would be beneficial, though the examples all involve viewing data, suggesting low risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, usage guidance, a list of representative examples, and a clear parameter description. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations. The front-loaded structure efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. With an output schema present, explaining return values is unnecessary. However, it lacks guidance on error cases (e.g., invalid command) and does not mention whether the tool requires a debug connection or specific state, which could be contextually relevant given the sibling tools' context. Overall, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'command' parameter as a 'TRACE32 window command' with concrete examples (e.g., 'Data.List', 'Var.Watch'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definition. However, it could further clarify format constraints (e.g., required quotes or prefixes).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves text content of any TRACE32 window command, with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'text content of any TRACE32 window command'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the most flexible view tool' for 'specialized views not covered by other tools', making its purpose unique among the numerous get_* siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for specialized views not covered by other tools.' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and the examples illustrate valid commands. No exclusions are needed, as the tool is designed as a catch-all, and the context makes the usage boundaries clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description itself is transparent about being a read-only list operation returning a formatted list. No side effects are expected, so behavior is adequately disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences; first two are clear and informative. The third sentence is slightly redundant but does not harm readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains return values and purpose. It is complete enough for an agent to use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all available debug skills, specifying returns (skill names, categories, descriptions). It distinguishes from siblings like search_debug_skills and get_debug_skill by implying it provides an overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says to use it when you need to list all debug skills, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the context of siblings makes use cases clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the caching behavior: 'shows data as the CPU sees it through its data cache, not the stale value on the bus'. No annotations exist, so description carries burden well. No mention of side effects, but read operation is likely safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise: two short paragraphs plus Args/Returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and presence of output schema (though schema not fully shown), description adequately explains usage and return value. Could mention that it's a cached read and doesn't access physical bus, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description provides explicit details for all 3 parameters: address as hex string, length in bytes, width with possible values (8,16,32,64) and default (32). Schema only has titles and default, so description adds significant value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Read memory using cache-aware access (D: prefix)' and distinguishes from siblings by noting it shows data as CPU sees through its data cache, not stale bus value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Essential for debugging code that modifies cached memory (e.g., shared variables in LMU on TC39x)', giving clear context when to use. Does not list when not to use, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the read bypasses cache and may differ from CPU-visible values, and mentions the return format (hex dump). This provides good behavioral transparency for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections (Args, Returns) and is reasonably concise. It front-loads the key purpose. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers inputs and output format. It's complete for a physical memory read tool, though error handling or edge cases are not mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: address as hex string, length as bytes, width with possible values (8, 16, 32, 64) and default (32). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads physical memory bypassing CPU cache. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_memory and read_memory_cached by emphasizing the cache-bypassing behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the scenario for using this tool (when you need the actual memory bus value, not the cached value). Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare directly with alternatives, the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description compensates by clarifying the tool is read-only and non-destructive, and specifies required target state. Could further mention it does not modify trace buffer contents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus parameter/return details. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers key usage context (halted target) and parameter semantics. Has output schema so return format is not required. Could mention availability prerequisites (e.g., trace must be started), but overall sufficient for a simple display tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description adds meaning by explaining max_records is 'Maximum number of trace records to display' with default value, significantly improving clarity over raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Display the recorded trace buffer contents' with specific details on what is shown (instruction flow, data accesses, timestamps). Distinguishes itself from sibling trace tools like trace_start or trace_clear as a read-only display tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states prerequisite 'The target must be halted' and notes timestamps are conditional. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like trace_data_read or trace_data_write, but provides sufficient context for when to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description adequately discloses that operation requires halted target, returns complete call chain with arguments and source context. Implicitly read-only, but no explicit safety statement. Lacks mention of permissions or return format details beyond 'formatted'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Prerequisite and output format included efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, description fully covers tool behavior and expected output. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters; baseline score 4 is appropriate. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves the current call stack with function names and arguments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_function by focusing on the full backtrace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States prerequisite 'target must be halted', providing clear context for use. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the purpose is self-evident. Slight gap in comparing to get_current_function or get_source_location.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return behavior (chip stepping, device variant, CPU configuration) and implicitly indicates it's a read-only operation. Lacks explicit safety or side-effect statements, but sufficient for a non-destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: front-loaded with purpose, followed by return details and use case. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and why to use it. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining return semantics, which indirectly clarifies that no input is needed. Baseline 3, but the description effectively communicates the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detected chip/device information'. It lists specific return items (chip stepping, device variant, CPU configuration) and suggests use case (verifying correct CPU is selected). It distinguishes from sibling 'detect_cpu' by focusing on already detected info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states usefulness for verifying correct CPU selection, giving context for when to use. However, no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns configuration (paths, settings) and indicates it is a read operation (no side effects implied). While it could explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, the context is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose, a brief usage note, and a one-line return description. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, an output schema, and a straightforward return, the description is fully complete. It indicates data sources (toml and env vars), usage context, and return content. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details (none needed), but this is acceptable as there is nothing to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the DebugForge project configuration, including specific resources like paths and TRACE32 settings. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which perform different actions (e.g., building, memory operations, breakpoints), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises calling this tool 'at the start of a debug session to learn about the project context,' providing clear usage timing. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given its unique config retrieval role, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses that it returns a table of breakpoints with address, type, and state, which is sufficient for a simple list tool. It does not elaborate on ordering or filtering, but those are not expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple list operation, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (active breakpoints). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_breakpoint or clear_all_breakpoints by being a read-only listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when you need to see active breakpoints) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like get_breakpoint_count.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the core behavior: target briefly stops, command executes, then optionally resumes. It also mentions the resume parameter. However, it does not address error handling, side effects, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences plus structured Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params), presence of an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description covers the necessary context: purpose, parameters, return value, and usage scenario. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains each parameter: address (address or symbol), command (with example), resume (default behavior). This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema's bare properties. Minor lack of address format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets an action breakpoint that executes a TRACE32 command when hit, distinguishing it from other breakpoint tools like set_breakpoint or set_conditional_breakpoint. The verb 'set' and resource 'action breakpoint' are specific and unique among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides use cases like logging variable values and collecting trace data, guiding when to use this tool. It implies usage for command execution on breakpoint hit but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, which would be helpful given the many breakpoint siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the behavioral change (default data access class shows cached data from CPU's point of view) and the use case. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but for a simple toggle, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, an explanatory paragraph, and a structured argument description. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter information. It could mention potential impact on other reads or performance, but for a debug tool, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must fully explain the single parameter 'enabled'. It does so by stating 'True to enable cache-aware reads, False to disable,' adding meaning beyond the schema's title 'Enabled'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool enables/disables cache-aware memory reads, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_memory and read_memory_cached. It specifies the effect (showing cached data vs stale bus-level data) and provides context for use (debugging cached memory modifications).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states it is 'Essential for debugging code that modifies cached memory,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, leaving some implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets a count breakpoint that stops after N hits and explains the three impl options (auto, soft intrusive, hard real-time). It does not mention side effects but given the tool's nature, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and a simple tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return type. Minor gap: could mention that it requires breakpoint support, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds full meaning. It explains 'address' as address or symbol name, 'count' with an example, and 'impl' with three options, which the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a count breakpoint that stops after the N-th hit, distinguishing it from other breakpoint tools like set_breakpoint or set_conditional_breakpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says it is useful for breaking in a loop at a specific iteration, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It truthfully states it stops recording and returns confirmation. It is straightforward and honest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus a return line. Front-loaded with the main action, then usage guidance, then output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema, so return specification in description is sufficient. Given the tool's simplicity (stop recording), the description covers everything an agent needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in schema; schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline for 0-param tools is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Stop the on-chip trace recording.' It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like trace_start (starts) and trace_state (queries state).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit precondition: 'Call after the target halts.' Provides clear context on when to use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description effectively conveys the operation: reading raw values since last reset, no side effects implied. Mentions prerequisite and return format, providing sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with clear Args/Returns sections; every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all needed aspects: purpose, prerequisite, parameter usage, and return values. Output schema exists so return explanation is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema: explains parameter 'counters' as list of names, gives examples (M1CNT, M2CNT), and clarifies behavior when empty/None (reads all). Compensates for 0% schema coverage excellently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Read current BenchMark Counter values.' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling BMC tools like bmc_configure or bmc_reset by focusing on reading values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States prerequisite 'Target must be halted' which helps ensure correct invocation. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use bmc_read vs bmc_cache_analysis), but usage context is clear for a read operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the tool's effect on TRACE32's response to target state changes and describes each mode's behavior (attach without reset, monitor power cycles, disable monitoring).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief behavioral note, then parameter documentation with bullet points, and a return value line. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single required parameter and an output schema (confirmation), the description provides all necessary information: purpose, parameter options, and return type. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides the type string without enum constraints or descriptions. The description adds complete meaning for the mode parameter by listing the three valid values and their behaviors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the debugger operational mode and controls how TRACE32 responds to target state changes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_standby_mode by covering multiple modes including attach and no_standby.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the three mode values with brief context for each, guiding when to use which. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it reads the message line and returns its text. There are no side effects, and the tool is a simple getter. The description is complete and accurate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what the message line is, and what it returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and low complexity, the description is complete. It explains the resource, the action, and the return value. The presence of an output schema reinforces that return values are documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none is needed. The schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the current TRACE32 message line content, explaining what the message line is. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'clear_message' (which clears the line) and 'send_message' (which writes to it).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading status messages, and the context of debug tools makes it clear when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though the sibling set includes related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes that it configures and starts the MCDS trace engine, mentions parameters and their defaults, and returns a confirmation. However, it does not mention any side effects, state changes, or constraints beyond the sequence, such as whether it can be called multiple times.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage instructions, parameter details, and return value. It is well-structured, concise, and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the detailed parameter explanations, the description covers all necessary information for tool invocation. It also differentiates from many sibling trace tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section that explains the purpose, allowed values, and defaults for both parameters (sources and timestamps). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Start on-chip trace recording using MCDS.' The verb 'start' and resource 'trace recording' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like trace_stop, trace_list, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use: 'Must be called before running the target.' Also gives follow-up actions: 'Call trace_stop() and trace_list() after the target halts.' This offers clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral details: 'The target briefly stops, the WatchPin pulses, then execution resumes' and notes the return is a confirmation. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and meets it well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and front-loaded: purpose sentence, use case sentence, behavior sentence, then parameter list. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, behavior, parameters, and return. The tool is simple, and the description is complete given the output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear explanations for all parameters: address (symbol or address), pin (WatchPin number), and pulse_width_us (with default). This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets an action breakpoint that pulses a WatchPin when hit, distinguishing it from other breakpoint and watchpin tools by combining both functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use case: 'correlating software events with external hardware (e.g., oscilloscope)' but does not mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/YangPan2020/debugforge'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server