pyocd_svd_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It honestly describes the two modes and what is returned (registers with descriptions or fields with bit ranges, descriptions, and enumerated values). It does not mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., SVD must be attached), but for a read-only query tool this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers both modes and return contents sufficiently for an agent to use correctly.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavior difference when register_name is omitted versus provided, going beyond the schema's brief description.

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 clearly states the tool returns a full description of a peripheral or specific register, distinguishing two modes based on the presence of register_name. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_registers or list_fields by combining listing with detailed descriptions and enumerated 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?

The description explains the behavior (with/without register_name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pyocd_svd_list_registers or pyocd_svd_list_fields. Usage context is implied but not directly compared.

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