flash_tool_detect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it inspects the local machine for specific flashing tools and acts as a prerequisite check, which implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly states that it is read-only/non-destructive, nor does it mention permissions, environment assumptions, or how it searches for the tools.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the tools detected; the second gives the usage trigger. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter detection tool with a full output schema, the description tells the agent what it detects and when to call it, and the output schema can convey return values. It omits OS-specific or permission caveats, but the essential agent needs are covered.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter guidance, but none is needed for a tool that takes no arguments.

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 (检测/detect) and resource (installed flashing tools: esptool/st-flash/pyocd/openocd). It is clear the tool inspects the local machine for programming executables, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `toolchain_status`, which may also report installed tooling.

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 says '烧录前先调这个看有什么可用' (call this before flashing to see what is available), giving a clear when-to-use trigger relative to flash_firmware. It does not name exclusions or alternative detection approaches.

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