dbgprobe.flash

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors (format support, auto-detection, optional verify/reset, two modes) but omits details on destructive overwrite or error handling, which is acceptable for a flashing tool.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey all essential information: purpose, format support, and mode behavior. No redundant or unnecessary words, achieving high density of useful guidance.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers modes, parameters, and behavior. It lacks details on output or error responses, but the core functionality is well-explained.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between addr and file format, the conditional use of session_id, and defaults for verify/reset_after, exceeding schema-provided info.

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 flashes firmware to a target, specifies supported file formats (.hex, .elf, .bin) with address handling, and distinguishes between session-based and session-less modes, making it distinct from sibling debug probe operations.

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?

It explains when to use session_id (preferred) vs. session-less and when addr is required (.bin only), providing clear context. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient.

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