svd_read_peripheral

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the internal mechanism (hardware register reads combined with SVD definitions), prerequisites, and output nature (structured, human-readable view). It doesn't mention side effects or error conditions, but for a read-only tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 three short sentences plus an example, with the action verb placed first. Every sentence adds value—purpose, mechanism, prerequisites, and usage example—making it tightly packed with zero redundancy.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it works, prerequisites, and output type. It lacks a detailed output format or a list of valid peripherals, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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. The example 'svd_read_peripheral('USART2')' clarifies that the 'peripheral' parameter expects a string name, and the parameter name itself is self-explanatory. This provides sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads all register values for a peripheral and interprets each field using SVD definitions. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like svd_load (which loads SVD files) and read_stopped_context (which reads CPU context).

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires probe connected and target halted') and a concrete example (USART2), giving strong context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it doesn't fully reach the 5-level.

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