stm32_start_gdb_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the server runs as a background process and explains the persistent flag's runtime effect. However, it omits important consequences: the server outlives the tool call, the port becomes occupied, and the process presumably must be stopped with stm32_stop_gdb_server.

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?

A single purpose sentence is followed by a compact parameter list with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every line earns its place.

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 side-effectful tool that spawns a persistent server and has no annotations, the description should address lifecycle and prerequisites more thoroughly. Core behavior and parameters are covered, and an output schema exists, but the missing stop/disconnect flow and port-conflict/probe-absence failure modes leave the agent partially in the dark.

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%, so the 'Args' section adds essential meaning to all four parameters: port, probe_index, verify, and persistent. Each gets a concise behavioral explanation that goes beyond the schema's type-and-default-only entries.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Starts'), a specific resource ('bundled ST-LINK_gdbserver'), and operational mode ('background process listening on specified TCP port'). This clearly separates it from sibling stm32_start_openocd, which starts a different debug server.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stm32_start_openocd, nor are prerequisites (e.g., ST-Link probe connection, prior installation) mentioned. The description jumps straight to parameters, leaving the agent to infer selection context.

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