debug_dump_symbol_ihex

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond them: folders are created and an existing file is replaced, symbol access is gated by debug.allowed_symbols/allow_all_symbols, and dumps above debug.max_dump_size_bytes return permission_denied. It also names the failure modes (session_not_active, symbol_source_not_available, symbol_not_found).

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?

The core action and its output path lead the sentence, with prerequisites and error conditions following — well front-loaded and free of filler. The telegraphic semicolon fragments ('Value inline: debug_symbol_value') require some parsing but each clause carries real 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly names the return values (address, size_bytes, output), and it covers the probe-specific preconditions, permission model, size limit, and the relevant error codes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema (pattern, allowed-roots rule, .hex/.ihex constraint, error codes). The description repeats the output_path role and some error codes but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — read an allowed symbol from target memory and write it as Intel HEX to output_path — and distinguishes itself from the sibling debug_symbol_value by reserving that tool for inline values. An agent can separate this from debug_symbol_info and debug_symbol_value without opening any schema.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly: 'Value inline: debug_symbol_value' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, and the description spells out per-probe prerequisites (OpenOCD needs debug_start_session; pyOCD/STM32CubeProgrammer need the ELF from flash_firmware). When-to-use, when-not, and prerequisites are all present.

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