keil_diagnose_connection

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does real work: it states the tool does not connect or reset the target, implying a side-effect-free read. It also warns that a detected probe does not prove target power or SWD connectivity, which is exactly the interpretive context an agent needs. It omits whether a debug session must already exist and what failure looks like, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every phrase adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and for a zero-parameter diagnostic the description covers purpose, safety profile, and result interpretation. The only remaining gap is its relationship to other diagnostic siblings (keil_get_status, keil_get_environment) for sequencing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly introduces no parameter discussion, so there is nothing to mislead. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool with full 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 ('Enumerate probes') and adds the crucial scoping constraint that it does so 'without connecting/resetting', which distinguishes it from siblings like keil_start_debug and keil_reset. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, but the action and its boundary are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the safe first step before a connect/reset flow. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, nor a pointer to siblings such as keil_get_status or keil_start_debug for the follow-up step. The caveat about USB presence clarifies result interpretation rather than tool selection.

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