verify_flash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses which sections are compared, why writable sections are excluded (they always differ post-execution), and the failure mode of including them. It stops short of describing the result/failure output, but the behavioral disclosure is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the key default-behavior decision and the exception. Every sentence carries information; none restate the schema or annotations.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, defaults, and the critical parameter decision thoroughly. Its one gap is not indicating what the verification returns (pass/fail shape, mismatch reporting), which the absent output schema leaves to the description.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (baseline 3). The description adds genuine semantic value by explaining what comparing read-only vs writable sections means and precisely when include_writable is meaningful, going beyond the schema's terse 'Only meaningful immediately after a load.'

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 and resource ('Verifies that target flash matches an ELF') and grounds it in a known mechanism (GDB compare-sections). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write operations like flash_firmware and flash_erase.

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?

Explicitly states when the default behavior applies (read-only sections always) and gives a precise when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule for include_writable: 'only right after a load, before the target has executed.' The rationale for exclusion is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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