select_core

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.