环境一致性体检（芯片 / SVD / 固件 / 符号 / D-Cache）

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

It discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it reports 'unknown' when IDCODE cannot be read (not faking results), explains the guard field (active=false means no chip model verification), and warns that 'no error' does not guarantee correctness. It also clarifies that the tool is lazy-connected and won't alter debug state, complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 long but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose, then detailing outputs, caveats, and finally parameters. It uses paragraphs and bullet points effectively, though it could be more concise while retaining the critical edge-case information.

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 complex tool with detailed output fields and edge-case behaviors, the description is largely complete: it explains the output structure, safety, and failure modes. However, the lack of parameter explanations creates a gap for advanced usage, though the default call (empty object) is sufficient for the primary use case.

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 description lists the optional parameters (project, link, content_check) but does not explain their purpose or effects. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent receives no guidance on what these parameters control, making it hard to use them effectively beyond the default empty call.

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 explicitly states the tool checks consistency between the expected target (from project/tools) and the actual target on the board, listing specific problem types (e.g., symbol/firmware mismatch, wrong SVD chip selection) and detailed output fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools like get_version or keil_command by serving a unique consistency-checking role.

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 description provides clear usage context (cross-repo/cross-board debugging, run first before debugging) and notes the lazy connection that safely avoids entering debug/stop/download. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it directly to alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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