probe_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real operational trait — an optional pyocd dependency — which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about whether the probe is a read-only enumeration, whether the call can hang on missing hardware, or what happens when no probe is attached.

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 short sentences plus a dependency note; the capability is stated first and the usage trigger second. Nothing is padded, though the dependency clause is appended rather than integrated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters the only real gaps are behavioral (failure modes, hardware prerequisites). The description covers purpose, a usage trigger, and a dependency, which is nearly sufficient for this simple enumeration tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies: there is no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly adds none.

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?

States a specific verb (probe/探测) plus two concrete resources: connected debug probes (DAPLink/ST-Link/J-Link) and the target chip, which is more specific than a generic 'list probes'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as flash_tool_detect or chip_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: call this first when flashing fails or the target chip cannot be found. That is a clear and actionable 'when to use', but no exclusive condition or named alternative (e.g. flash_tool_detect) is offered for the non-failure path.

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