standalone_view

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 implies a read-only snapshot and discloses the breadth of what is returned, including validation problems, which is useful. But it omits behavior when no standalone project exists, whether project_id is optional and defaults to the active project, and whether the call is expensive or large.

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 sentence that front-loads the payload contents and appends the .ioc text, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a read tool, though the leading noun phrase without a verb slightly reduces scannability.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both behavior and returns. It enumerates the returned sections well enough to set expectations, but leaves gaps around default project resolution, failure modes, and result size, which matter for a tool returning an entire project state plus raw file text.

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 100% for the single project_id parameter, so the schema already defines it. The description adds no meaning about whether the parameter is optional, what happens when omitted, or how it relates to an active/open project. Baseline 3 applies given the schema does the work.

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 clearly states the resource: a complete standalone project state covering MCU, pins, IP parameters, NVIC, options, and validation problems, plus raw .ioc text. That is far more specific than the name alone. However, it never uses a verb ('view' is only in the name) and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like standalone_info, ioc_get, or project_get, which likely return overlapping data.

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 call this instead of standalone_info, ioc_get, or project_get, and no stated preconditions such as whether a standalone project must already be open. The agent must infer usage from the contents list alone.

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