Lists peripheral API usage by bus, showing which peripherals each driver needs and required initialization order, so you can port drivers or debug configured peripherals that fail to read data.
外设 API 用法知识层：每个驱动要占哪些外设（I2C1/TIM1/UART2…）、 初始化顺序有什么硬要求。移植驱动或排查"外设配了但读不到数"时先查这里。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bus | No |
| 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 full burden. It usefully discloses the kind of content returned (peripheral assignments and init-order constraints), but says nothing about the 'bus' filter behavior, result scope, or any operational constraints.
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 resource definition followed by the usage trigger. No wasted wording.
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 described, and the content scope is reasonably conveyed. But the sole input parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and no annotations exist, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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?
There is one parameter ('bus') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its filtering semantics. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap; an agent cannot tell what 'bus' filters by.
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 states a specific resource (peripheral API usage knowledge: which peripherals each driver occupies like I2C1/TIM1/UART2 and init-order requirements) and an intended use. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling peripheral_api_get, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It gives a concrete when-to-use: porting drivers or troubleshooting 'peripheral configured but can't read data'. However it names no alternative (e.g., peripheral_api_get) and gives no when-not guidance, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.