value_check

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 useful behavioral context: it discloses that evaluation uses XML condition expressions such as IP dependencies, semaphores, and die variants, and that results depend on the current state. It still does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or whether it has any side effects.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes useful return tokens. It is appropriately sized for a simple check operation and has no wasted text.

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?

Given the rich input schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context by naming the possible return outcomes and explaining the condition-evaluation behavior. It is nearly complete, though it could do more to state read-only safety and how it relates to sibling validation tools.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only refers generally to 'ip', 'parameter', and 'value' and does not add format details, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: ask CubeMX whether a parameter value is legal for an IP, and it explains that this evaluates XML condition expressions rather than guessing. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from relevant siblings such as mode_check or clock_param_possible_values.

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 the phrase 'right now' and by the contrast with guessing, suggesting it should be used for current-state legality checks. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools like ip_param_get, ip_param_set, mode_check, or clock_param_possible_values.

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