selectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'enumerate/inspect' but the schema includes set actions with value/target, and the description does not disclose whether these mutate CubeMX state, what permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or how project_id and timeout affect behavior.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that starts with the tool's domain and then lists the selector categories. It is efficient with little wasted wording, though the list is somewhat dense and could be structured more clearly.

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 seven parameters, three required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do more to explain valid actions, return behavior, mutation side effects, and how project_id scopes the selector tables. It provides a high-level category list but is not complete enough to invoke the multiplexed action/kind combinations correctly without trial and error.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds context for the kind enum (MCU finder, board-manager, example library), but it does not clarify action strings, the meaning of target/value in set operations, or timeout/open_first behavior beyond the schema.

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 says to use CubeMX's headless selector tables and lists three categories (MCU finder columns/filters, board-manager peripheral tables, example library selections). However, it does not state a clear verb+resource like 'inspect' or 'enumerate' as the tool's core action, and it does not differentiate this generic selector access from siblings such as mcu_search, board_search, or ip_library.

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 names the selector families but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus mcu_search, board_search, ip_library, or other catalog/search tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the high-level categories.

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