dbgprobe.probes.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds some behavioral context: it is a read operation that returns probe info, and for J-Link it uses JLinkExe. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and return info. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and return types (serial number, description). Without an output schema, it does not specify the exact structure, which would be helpful but not critical for a simple list tool. It is mostly complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'backend' parameter. The description adds value by explaining that J-Link enumerates via JLinkExe, hinting at backend-specific behavior. This enriches the schema description.

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 action 'list' and the resource 'attached debug probes'. It specifies the output includes vendor/backend-specific info like serial number and description, and mentions J-Link enumeration via JLinkExe. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are unrelated debug 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?

The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions J-Link enumeration but does not indicate situations where one backend is preferred or state prerequisites. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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