stm32_launch_ide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary side effect (launching a GUI) and explains the clean parameter's effect ('passes -clean to refresh Eclipse OSGi bundles'). However, it does not mention whether the call blocks or returns immediately, potential prerequisites (e.g., installation), or how failures are reported. It provides some parameter-level detail but lacks broader behavioral context.

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. It opens with the core purpose, then lists parameters in a clear, front-loaded list. There is no redundant or vague language; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 launcher tool with four optional parameters, the description covers all parameter semantics and the core action. It does not specify the return value, but an output schema exists (indicated by 'has output schema: true'), which likely documents that. It also does not mention whether the tool blocks, but that is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward nature. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 description explicitly explains every parameter: workspace_path, project_path, file_to_open, and clean. Each is described with its purpose (e.g., 'path to open a specific Eclipse workspace directory'). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal titles and defaults, providing actionable meaning for an agent.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Opens/launches the STM32CubeIDE desktop application') that precisely identifies the tool's function. This distinguishes it from siblings like stm32_detect_installation (detection), stm32_close_ide (closing), and stm32_focus_ide_window (focusing). The intent is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through its function ('Opens/launches'), but it lacks exclusions or guidance like 'use stm32_close_ide to terminate' or 'use stm32_detect_installation first to verify installation.' The agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and sibling set.

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