List ST-LINK probes

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

The description explicitly discloses that an empty list is returned instead of an error when no probes are attached, which is valuable behavior beyond what annotations (none) would provide. No other behavioral details are given, but this is sufficient for a simple list 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and a useful edge-case clarification. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a single simple behavior, the description is complete. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral nuance (empty list vs error).

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 has zero parameters clauses, and per guidelines a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 clearly states it lists connected ST-LINK probes via a specific CLI tool, with a distinct verb+resource. It differentiates from all siblings which focus on debugging and memory operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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