list_programmer_cables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what is detected (cables, dev boards, FPGAs on JTAG chain) but does not mention timeout behavior or potential hardware access requirements, which could be relevant. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any filler, making it highly concise.

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 simple detection tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list of cables and FPGAs), but this is often implicit for detection tools. The lack of output schema and low complexity make it acceptable.

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 single parameter timeout_seconds has a default but no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value to understanding its semantics.

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 'detect' and clearly identifies the resource: connected Efinix programming cables/dev boards (FTDI) and the FPGAs on their JTAG chain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like program_device, which programs rather than lists, and other list tools.

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 purpose implies usage before programming, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like program_device or other list tools. No when-not or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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