stm32_start_openocd

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It says OpenOCD is started, but it does not say whether the process is long-running/blocking, whether it runs in the background, what happens on misconfiguration, or whether this requires an IDE/daemon relationship. The presence of an output schema covers return shape but not side effects.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler: verb, resource, and the key config-file input are all present. It is as concise as the current information allows.

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 process-launching tool, the description gives the essential action, and the schema defaults plus output schema cover invocation basics, making it minimally usable. It still omits operational facts like blocking behavior, installation requirements, and how it relates to stop/GDB siblings, which is why it does not rise above a 3.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain both parameters. It only implicitly maps 'configuration scripts' to config_files and says nothing about the port parameter, its default behavior, or valid value ranges.

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 identifies the action ('Starts'), the resource ('OpenOCD'), and the key input ('configuration scripts'), so an agent can tell this is about launching OpenOCD rather than the sibling GDB-server or IDE tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with stm32_start_gdb_server or stm32_launch_ide, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over stm32_start_gdb_server, stm32_launch_ide, or stm32_flash_firmware, and no mention of prerequisites such as OpenOCD being installed or a target being connected. The only usage signal is the verb and resource, which leaves the decision to inference.

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