pyocd_svd_list_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the output content but does not state whether the tool reads from the SVD database (not hardware), has side effects, or is read-only. This leaves the agent uncertain about safety and side effects.

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 a single front-loaded sentence of 14 words. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the tool's scope for listing bit fields. However, it could mention that the peripheral and register must exist in the SVD, but this is not a major gap.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Peripheral name', 'Register name'). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance clarity.

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 action (list), the resource (bit fields of a peripheral register), and the information returned (name, bit range, width, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pyocd_svd_list_registers, which lists registers, and pyocd_svd_read, which reads register 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 implies usage for inspecting bit-field structure but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., pyocd_svd_read for reading values) or when not to use it (e.g., no SVD attachment). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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