keil_stop_debug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the MCU is left halted rather than resumed. It says nothing about whether the debug session is fully terminated, what happens if no session is active, whether target state or breakpoints are preserved, or whether the release is reversible — meaningful gaps for a disconnect operation.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action (disconnect/release) and following with the critical behavioral qualifier. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 values need not be explained, and with no parameters the surface area is small. The one thing missing is the relationship to keil_halt and keil_start_debug, which would complete the picture for an agent choosing among debug-teardown options.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments or implying options that the schema does not have.

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 gives a concrete verb pair ("Disconnect and release") and a specific resource ("the probe"), which is unambiguous and distinct from keil_halt or keil_reset. It does not name the complementary sibling keil_start_debug, but the action is clear enough to select correctly without opening the schema.

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 phrase "without automatically resuming the MCU" implies this is the teardown counterpart to keil_halt/keil_start_debug, so end-of-session usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., an active debug session), and no named alternative for the case where the agent wants to stop execution but keep the probe attached.

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