stm32_read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the non-mutating 'Reads' behavior and the memory types covered, which is useful. But it does not disclose potential side effects such as target halting, connection requirements, or behavior on invalid addresses, so coverage is only partial.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear Args section. Every line adds value, and there is no redundant prose or repetition of schema defaults.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it defines all parameters and the operation. It could add edge-case guidance like word-alignment or invalid-address behavior, but these are minor given the output schema and straightforward read semantics.

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 richly compensates: address is explained with hex examples, size is specified as number of 32-bit words, and port lists valid interface values ('SWD', 'JTAG'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema defaults.

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 action ('Reads 32-bit words') and resource ('target memory address'), and adds the scope of memory types (registers, RAM, Flash). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/dump tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when to use it: when you need to inspect target memory contents. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name and context.

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