list_supported_chips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so an agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free enumeration. The description adds the content scope (chips plus third-party pinout allocation rules) but says nothing about how results are ordered, paginated, or whether custom vs. built-in entries are distinguished.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource scope and examples occupy exactly the space they need and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 trivial zero-param enumeration with full annotation coverage, the description conveys what is returned at a scope level and needs no parameter or return-format detail. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether results include custom-registered chips from register_custom_chip, but nothing blocks 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?

Zero parameters, so the schema cannot carry parameter meaning and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies this is an unfiltered full listing, aligning with the empty input schema.

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 ("List") and resource ("registered MCU chips and third-party pinout allocation rules"), with concrete chip examples that make the domain unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling register_custom_chip by emphasizing registered/allocated entries, but never names it, so sibling differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement naming alternatives such as register_custom_chip or validate_netlist. However, "all registered" strongly implies the discovery use case: call this to see which chips and pinout rules already exist before registering or validating. That is implied usage, not stated guidance.

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