mcu_search

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does state key return fields (flash/RAM/core/package and exact RefName), but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention pagination, or describe error handling.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and examples, with no filler. It efficiently conveys purpose, accepted inputs, and a key return value.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description identifies the important returned fields and the downstream RefName usage. It is largely complete, though it omits limit behavior and does not clarify the `load` target.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful concrete examples of valid query forms beyond the schema's brief 'Part number, RefName or prefix' text, improving parameter interpretation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (search MCUs) and concrete query formats, including examples. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like mcu_info or family_mcus.

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 implies usage by stating the returned RefName is meant for `load`, and it lists acceptable query forms. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as mcu_info or family_mcus, and no exclusions.

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