detect_probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a concrete behavioral trait beyond annotations: it preserves serial numbers so identical probes are not collapsed, which is important for identifying multiple devices. It does not cover return format or error cases.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple detection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and a key output guarantee (serial-number preservation). It could say more about the returned format (e.g., list of serials/names), but the annotation set covers safety and the tool's scope is clear.

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 100% and the single optional 'session' parameter is documented in the schema ('Optional debug-session name. Omit for the default target.'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('physical ST-Link, J-Link, and CMSIS-DAP probes currently connected over USB'), and adds the serial-number preservation guarantee that differentiates it from a generic list tool. The scope is unambiguous and no sibling performs the same action.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say whether to call this before starting a debug session or how it relates to tools like start_debug_session or self_check. Implied usage only.

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