mcu_info

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It is highly transparent by detailing the data source ('db/mcu/<RefName>.xml') and the specific granular contents of the resulting record, adding significant behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 tool is presented in a single, dense sentence that front-loads all critical information (what is retrieved and what it contains). There is zero wasted language.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must be self-sufficient. It is highly complete in describing the depth and nature of the returned data (e.g., 'every IP instance with its CubeMX IP version'), which fully informs the agent about the tool's capabilities.

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 schema description covers the 'ref_name' parameter as the 'Part number or RefName.' With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no meaningful semantic information beyond reinforcing the required identifier's purpose.

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 tool specifies a clear action ('Full record') on a specific resource ('one MCU') and details the comprehensive contents of the record (attributes, memory, IP instances, config files), distinguishing its scope.

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 implies the use case is retrieving the complete definition of an MCU, but it does not explicitly state when it should be used versus other available lookup tools, offering only implied context rather than direct guidance.

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