Lists supported embedded ecosystems and frameworks—Zephyr, RT-Thread, PlatformIO, Keil, IAR, Rust defmt—so you can identify which project environment you are debugging.
列出已收录的嵌入式生态/框架（Zephyr / RT-Thread / PlatformIO / Keil / IAR / Rust defmt）。 拿到不认识的工作目录、或一段陌生的报错时，先判断「这是哪个生态的工程」—— 识别错了，后面每一步排查都会拐到沟里。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool the safety profile is self-evident. It discloses the contents of the list and its role in the diagnostic workflow, but adds nothing about freshness, stability, or ordering of results.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the concrete list of ecosystems, followed by the use-case rationale. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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 the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and place in the workflow. It stops short of explicitly connecting to the sibling tools that consume its result, which would have made it complete.
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. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('列出已收录的嵌入式生态/框架') and enumerates concrete examples (Zephyr / RT-Thread / PlatformIO / Keil / IAR / Rust defmt). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'ecosystem_get', which retrieves a single ecosystem.
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?
Explicitly states the trigger context: '拿到不认识的工作目录、或一段陌生的报错时', and gives the rationale for acting first. It does not, however, name the alternative sibling (e.g. project_detect / ecosystem_get) that an agent should use after this step, so routing is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.