stm32_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it 'writes' and 'generates' files, but does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing projects, whether it is destructive, or any other state changes. This is insufficient for a tool that creates project files.

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 extremely concise, fitting in two sentences, and is well-structured with the argument list first followed by the action. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, enum), the description provides a sufficient high-level overview of inputs and outputs. It lacks details about presets (e.g., what clock presets are available) and does not mention return values or error cases, but these are not critical for a creation tool and are not specified in the schema either.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minor structural detail (e.g., pins[] format and clock object fields) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: 'Writes a valid .ioc and generates the CubeIDE project.' It lists all arguments in a structured way and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stm32_configure_pins or stm32_generate_code by focusing on project creation.

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 usage when creating a new project but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use stm32_configure_pins instead). It lacks explicit guidance on context or prerequisites.

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