Reads and decodes Cortex-M fault registers to identify likely fault causes in STM32 firmware.
Reads and decodes Cortex-M fault registers into likely fault causes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | Optional debug-session name. Omit for the default target. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the output is an interpreted result ('likely fault causes') rather than raw register dumps, which is genuinely useful, but it omits any precondition about the target being halted in a fault state and does not describe what is read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word (verb, resource family, output type) earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only gestures at the output ('likely fault causes'). It also omits the crucial precondition that a fault condition exists to diagnose. Adequate but with clear gaps for a diagnostic tool.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'session' parameter, so the schema already explains the omit-for-default behavior. The description adds no additional semantics about the session parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 pair (reads and decodes) and a specific resource (Cortex-M fault registers), plus the derived output (likely fault causes). The scope is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as reconstruct_fault_context or coredump, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. target halted due to a fault), and no mention of alternatives like reconstruct_fault_context or session_diagnostics. The agent is left to infer the diagnostic context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.