project_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real context beyond structured fields: CubeMX may require a my.st.com login, and failures surface as KO-status entries in `warnings`. It does not disclose that this is a long-running mutating operation, how its results are shaped beyond warnings, or the significance of the timeout/retry behavior described only in the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact list, with the caveat about login/warnings placed after. It is dense but earns its length; only minor tightening is possible.

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 13-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and one important failure mode (missing firmware package requiring login). It stops short of explaining what the caller receives on success, how generation results relate to the max_files/file-listing parameters, or its relationship to the competing generate_code tool.

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 every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the input schema; the description mentions only the toolchain dimension. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter documentation and the description adds no format or interaction guidance.

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 verb and resource ('Generate the complete project') and enumerates the produced artifacts (CubeMX code, firmware drivers, IDE project files), which an agent can map to a concrete outcome. It references the CLI equivalent 'project generate' as an anchor, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling generate_code, leaving mild ambiguity about which generation entry point to use.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a toolchain' and the equivalence to 'project generate', which tells an agent this is the full-generation path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not phrasing and no routing away from the sibling generate_code or standalone_generate, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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