执行任意 Keil 命令窗口命令

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that UVSOCK status is unreliable, that errors must be read from ok/errors fields, that newlines/repeated commands are rejected, and that commands like BK *, RESET, and G change target state. There is no direct contradiction with annotations, though idempotentHint=true is optimistic for arbitrary commands like G.

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?

Long but information-dense: core behavior is front-loaded, followed by a compact command cheat-sheet, three real-device pitfalls, return shape, risk note, and parameters. Each section earns its place and the formatting makes scanning easy.

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?

Given a low parameter count, no enums, and an existing output schema, the description covers invocation, return values, error semantics, risk, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it and how to interpret the result is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate. It richly documents the command parameter with examples and valid syntax, but settle_ms and explain_errors are only listed as optional, with semantics left to inference from their names and defaults. This is acceptable for optional tuning parameters but not fully explicit.

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?

Description states exact mechanism: send one raw command verbatim to Keil command window via UVSOCK EXEC_CMD and return output/errors. It also frames itself as a catch-all fallback when dedicated tools do not cover the operation, which clearly distinguishes it from specialized siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool when dedicated tools do not cover the operation, warns that only one command at a time is accepted, and routes multi-step workflows to batch or batch_debug_script. It also lists high-risk commands, advising caution.

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