stm32_detect_installation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly enumerates what is detected, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., that STM32CubeIDE must be installed) or failure behavior if the installation is not found. The absence of such details leaves some ambiguity for a read-only tool.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a bulleted list of detected components. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to scan and understand the tool's scope.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential information: what it detects. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens if the installation is not found, but the output schema likely handles that. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds value by listing what the detection will return, which is more than the schema alone provides (though the schema has no properties).

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 states a specific verb ('auto-detects') and a clear resource (STM32CubeIDE installation path and bundled toolchains), listing the exact components. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on operations like building, flashing, or debugging.

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 context is clear: this tool is for detecting installation paths and toolchains, and it is the only tool of its kind among the siblings. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous, and an agent would naturally use this before any tool that requires knowing the installation path.

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