collect_peripheral_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It suggests a read-only action by using 'collect facts', but it does not state whether the target must be connected, whether SVD must be loaded, whether any state is modified, or what output is returned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is too brief to be complete. It leaves unanswered what the 'facts' look like, when the tool is useful, and what dependencies exist, so an agent would likely need to guess or inspect runtime behavior.

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 description must compensate. It mentions peripheral, RCC, and GPIO, which map to the three properties, but it does not explain acceptable values for 'peripheral', nor how the boolean flags affect collection. This is only a partial semantic bridge.

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 names a specific verb ('Collect') and a clear resource scope ('SVD-backed peripheral, RCC, and GPIO facts'), which distinguishes it from unrelated siblings. However, 'facts' is vague and it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related svd_read_peripheral 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like svd_read_peripheral or other evidence-collection tools. Usage context is only weakly implied by the tool's name and the collection-oriented wording.

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