list_peripherals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's read-only nature and output format, but lacks details on error handling, file format constraints, or performance characteristics. It doesn't contradict any annotations, but could benefit from more operational context.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and returns, the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about error conditions or output format specifics to achieve full completeness.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'svd_file'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage situations.

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 the specific action ('List all peripherals'), resource ('in an ARM CMSIS SVD file'), and output format ('Returns each peripheral's name, base address, and description'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'describe_field', 'lookup_register', and 'search_registers' by focusing on peripheral discovery rather than register-level 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to discover what hardware blocks are available in a microcontroller'), which implicitly suggests it's for initial exploration rather than detailed register analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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