mode_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that this is a read-only query against a live CubeMX instance and implies a yes/no answer, but it says nothing about failure modes, whether the project must be open, or what happens if the mode name is unrecognized.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy, plus an inline CLI equivalent that helps orient the agent to the underlying command. Nothing to trim.

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 three-required-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The return shape (boolean vs. structured result) and the precondition that a project is loaded are left unstated.

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 100%, so all three parameters (project_id, peripheral, mode) are documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of a 'mode' argument and no format details (e.g. dotted mode names or peripheral naming), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: querying CubeMX for whether a given mode is enabled. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from adjacent siblings such as submode_state, mode_list, or value_check, all of which could plausibly answer a similar question.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for mode_check versus submode_state or mode_list, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a project must be open). The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and description.

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