stm32_send_ide_shortcut

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the platform-specific shortcut variants (Ctrl vs Cmd) and lists every supported action, but it does not mention prerequisites such as the IDE being open or whether the window must be focused, nor what happens on invalid actions.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then uses a clean 'Supported actions:' list that adds necessary value. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully documented action list and an output schema available, the description is largely complete for invocation. Minor gaps such as preconditions and invalid-input behavior are absent, but they do not block correct 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?

The schema provides only a bare 'action' string with 0% description coverage and no enum. The description fully compensates by enumerating all supported action values and their keyboard shortcut mappings, giving the agent precise information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('Sends Eclipse keyboard shortcuts') and a specific target ('STM32CubeIDE window'), which clearly differentiates it from other STM32 tools. The list of supported actions reinforces the concrete scope of the tool.

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 makes it obvious that the tool is for sending IDE keyboard shortcuts, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over related siblings like stm32_build_project or stm32_launch_ide. Usage context is implied rather than stated with alternatives or exclusions.

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