cg_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It transparently states that cg_report does NO synthesis, only aggregates existing fragments. It discloses the return object with fields like ok, report, kernels, sim_ok, message, and notes that schematics are 'best-effort'. This exceeds what's required.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides a workflow and return value summary. It is slightly lengthy due to the workflow explanation, but every sentence adds value and the structure is logical.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and a clear set of sibling tools, the description is fully adequate. It explains the tool's role, dependencies, parameter effects, and output, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 provides essential parameter semantics: report_dir defaults to 'fpga/build', schematics defaults to true and setting it to false skips SVG generation. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states that cg_report finalizes an FPGA report by rendering a self-contained HTML with synthesis table, simulation results, Verilog file list, and datapath SVGs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it aggregates fragments from cg_synth and cg_simulate, not performing synthesis itself.

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 a clear workflow showing the correct order: cg_generate_verilog, cg_simulate, cg_synth, then cg_report. It also notes that setting schematics=False skips SVGs for faster execution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other sibling tools beyond the implied workflow.

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