list_probes

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

The description indicates a read-only listing action with 'List' and specifies that it returns serial numbers. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure and doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any prerequisites (e.g., ST-LINK drivers).

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is adequately complete: it states the purpose, the output (serial numbers), and the motivating scenario (multi-probe setups). It doesn't explain how the output integrates with sibling tools, but that's not essential for invoking this tool correctly.

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?

No parameters are defined, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is high, and the description adds context about what the output contains.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('connected ST-LINK probes'), and adds key details ('serial numbers' and 'multi-probe setups'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffold_project, build, and flash.

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 phrase 'for multi-probe setups' provides clear context for when this tool is useful: when multiple debug probes are connected and identification is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but given the sibling tools are unrelated actions, the usage intent is clear.

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