stm32_read_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: 'summarises' and 'reads' convey a non-mutating, read-only operation, and the source-of-truth scope (.ioc vs generated code) is explicit. It does not disclose failure behavior for invalid paths or missing .ioc files, but for a simple inspection tool these omissions are minor.

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?

Two sentences of roughly 25 words total, with the action and output list front-loaded and the scope clarification second. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler, repetition, or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, no enums, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the input, the data source, and the content of the summary, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It omits edge-case behavior (missing .ioc, invalid project) and exact return format, but nothing essential to a correct first invocation is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented structurally. The description adds only marginal nuance — 'existing project' implies a precondition that the path must already point to a real project, and 'Reads the .ioc' reinforces the schema's .ioc-file option. This is a small addition over the baseline set by complete 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Summarises') against a specific resource ('an existing project') and enumerates the exact deliverables: MCU, clock tree, configured pins, enabled peripherals, FreeRTOS status. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping the input source to the .ioc file, making it clearly the inspection tool among create/configure/generate/build/flash peers.

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 clause 'Reads the .ioc, not the generated code' gives a clear when-not boundary and implies this is the inspect-before-modifying step in the STM32 workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for inspecting generated code, so it falls short of full sibling routing, but the context is strong enough for an agent to place it correctly.

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