flash

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency on its own. It discloses the underlying tool (STM32_Programmer_CLI) and the flashing mechanism, but does not mention side effects like erasing existing firmware, verification behavior, or failure modes. This is a moderate disclosure.

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: the first delivers the core functionality, the second adds a practical tip about probe selection. No redundant 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide complete operational context. It gives the target, interface, and tool, but omits prerequisites, output/return behavior, and how to discover serial numbers (e.g., via list_probes). It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains serial_number's purpose and the accepted file extensions for file_path, but leaves erase, verify, reset_mode, frequency_khz, and part undocumented. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 specifies the action (Flash), the target (STM32C011), the interface (SWD via ST-LINK), and the accepted file formats (.elf/.bin/.hex), distinguishing it from sibling tools like build and list_probes.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for flashing firmware to an STM32C011, and the serial_number tip addresses multi-probe environments. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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