toolchain_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important scope constraint — it probes only the local machine (本机) — and enumerates what is inspected, but it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only with no side effects, nor any permission or rate-limit considerations. Adequate but with a clear gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the local-scope qualifier, followed by the covered categories and the usage trigger. The enumerated lists are informative rather than filler, and the sibling redirect is placed last as a clean hand-off.

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 the zero-parameter signature removes input ambiguity. The description covers scope, categories, and usage; the only residual gap is the absence of an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement, which is minor for a detection 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, which is the baseline 4 case, and schema coverage is 100%. There is nothing further for the description to add about inputs.

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 (探测/probe) and resource (本机 embedded toolchain), then enumerates the covered categories — compilers (ARM GCC/armclang/RISC-V/Xtensa), debuggers, and build systems (CMake/Ninja/west/SCons/PlatformIO/Cargo). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling flash_tool_detect, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 a concrete when-to-use trigger (换机器, or the 'compiles here but not on another machine' scenario) and explicitly routes flasher detection to flash_tool_detect. Both the situation and the alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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