peripheral_list

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 implies a read-only enumeration scoped to the 'loaded MCU', which is useful context about required state, but it says nothing about what happens if no MCU is loaded (error vs empty), whether results are paginated, or the shape of the returned entries.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The CLI hint is terse but arguably earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand in for return-value and error behavior, and it only names one returned field (IP version). It is adequate to identify the tool's intent but incomplete for calling it confidently in edge cases such as an unloaded project.

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?

Only one parameter (project_id) with full schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it. The description adds no meaning about how project_id relates to the 'loaded MCU' — e.g. whether the project must have an MCU assigned — leaving a semantic gap the schema cannot cover.

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?

States a specific resource ('Every IP instance the loaded MCU provides') and adds the returned attribute (CubeMX IP version), so the verb+resource is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like ip_library, mode_list, or mcu_info, so an agent must infer whether this lists peripherals of the currently loaded MCU project versus the vendor catalog.

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 parenthetical '(`get mcu peripherals`)' hints at a CLI equivalent but gives no guidance on when to call this versus ip_library, mode_list, or pinout_get. The only implicit condition is that an MCU must already be loaded, which is not stated as a prerequisite.

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