pyocd_target_list_supported

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 the tool is non-destructive (listing), but does not explicitly state read-only or safety. The behavioral transparency is adequate for a simple list tool but could be more explicit.

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, each well-justified: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage example. No wasted words, front-loaded with primary action.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, its scope, and how to use the filter. No gaps.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds value with concrete filter examples, improving the agent's understanding beyond the schema's 'Filter targets by name (case-insensitive)'.

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 it lists all MCU targets supported by pyocd, mentions the count (206+), and specific families (HC32, STM32, NXP, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools which are about debugging, memory, flash, etc.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use filter_text to search (e.g. 'hc32', 'stm32f4')'. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling names make it clear this is for discovery of supported targets.

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