stm32_get_build_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the use of arm-none-eabi-size and the analysis of sections, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything, nor does it disclose potential side effects like requiring a prior build or failing if artifacts are missing. It does not contradict any annotations since none are provided.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and method.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the output contains beyond mentioning Flash and RAM usage. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., that a build must have been run), likely error conditions (e.g., missing artifacts), or how the configuration parameter affects the inspection. Given the lack of annotations and parameter descriptions, the tool seems incomplete for an agent to use reliably without additional context.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters (project_dir, configuration). It mentions 'project output directory' but does not explicitly map that to the project_dir parameter, nor does it explain the role of the configuration parameter. The description leaves parameter semantics entirely to the schema, which itself lacks descriptions.

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 ('inspects') with a clear resource ('built binaries' with specific file extensions), and explicitly mentions the analysis of sections and calculation of Flash/RAM usage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_project, flash_firmware, or clean_project, which have different purposes.

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 implies it is used to analyze build outputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., after a successful build) or when not to use it (e.g., before building). No alternatives are mentioned, and the context of when it is appropriate is left to inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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