decode_register_svd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a file ('reads the real bit-fields from the SVD'), implying read-only file access. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., file not found, invalid SVD) or other behavioral traits like output format or potential side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description is concise and well-structured: a high-level purpose sentence, a comparison to a sibling tool for context, a concrete example, and a clear 'Args' listing. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (distinction from `decode_register`) is front-loaded.

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?

Given 5 parameters (4 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not describe the return value format, but since an output schema exists, that is acceptable. The only minor gap is the lack of details about error scenarios or file access requirements, but overall it is complete for typical usage.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the 'Args' block: `value` as raw register value, `svd_path` as file path, `peripheral` and `register` as names, and `width` with default 32. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles. A brief example further clarifies usage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool decodes a register value using a CMSIS-SVD file by name, contrasting with the sibling tool `decode_register` that requires manual bit map input. The verb 'decode' and specific resource (register via SVD) are explicit, distinguishing it from siblings like `flash_firmware` or `list_serial_ports`.

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?

The description explicitly advises use when an SVD file is available, saying 'Instead of typing out the bit map by hand (as `decode_register` needs)'. It provides an example and lists arguments, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention prerequisites like file existence. The guidance is clear for the primary use case.

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