stm32_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is headless, parses GCC output into structured diagnostics, returns a summary and flash/RAM usage from size output, and warns against raw log dumping. This gives the agent accurate expectations for execution and output.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. 'Headless build' is front-loaded, followed by the return contract and a direct handling instruction. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The schema fully documents all three parameters, and the description supplies the return format, including diagnostics structure, summary, and size usage. Since there is no output schema, the explicit return details are especially valuable. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 projectPath, clean, and configuration are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall build behavior, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 starts with 'Headless build', identifying a clear action and the STM32 project context, then explains what the tool returns: structured diagnostics, summary, and flash/RAM usage. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like stm32_clean or stm32_flash, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use it: for headless builds where structured diagnostics are desired, and it explicitly tells the agent not to dump raw logs into model context. However, it doesn't contrast this tool with siblings such as stm32_clean or stm32_flash, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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