suggest_server_args

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it validates that the referenced .cfg files exist in OpenOCD's bundled scripts dir, implying a possible failure mode, and shows the exact arg vector returned.

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 dense sentences: the capability and its example come first, the routing instruction second. No filler, and the most actionable line (call this, don't scan disk) is kept intact.

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 usefully previews the return shape via example args and notes validation of config files. It is nearly complete, though it doesn't say what happens when validation fails or when the MCU/probe pair is unsupported.

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 each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The worked example ('STM32L431 + stlink -> [...]') loosely illustrates how mcu and probe combine, but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (returns OpenOCD server_args for an MCU family + probe) and illustrates it with a concrete input/output example. It also names its downstream consumer (start_debug_session args), which separates it from siblings like detect_probe or describe_board.

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?

Gives an explicit call condition ('Call this to get start_debug_session args') plus a clear exclusion ('do NOT search the disk for .cfg files'). An agent knows both when to reach for it and what anti-pattern to avoid.

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