stm32_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It presents the operation as a reporting/diagnostic action and enumerates concrete output categories, including problem types such as missing packages and non-ASCII home paths. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything,' but 'Reports' strongly implies a non-mutating health check, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool reports, and the second sentence gives crisp operational guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the categories of information returned and when to run it. It leaves minor gaps such as the exact return format or how problems are represented, but an agent can reliably invoke and interpret this tool with the given information.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for undocumented arguments because none exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'Reports' and clearly identifies the resource: the STM32 development environment's resolved paths, versions, installed firmware packages, and detected problems. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which create, configure, generate, patch, build, clean, flash, or read projects.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Run this first' and 'every other tool should suggest it on failure.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool relative to all alternatives, which is strong usage guidance for a diagnostic entry point.

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