detect_cpu

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.