Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gowin_resourcesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; the description describes it as a read operation returning resource usage, which is safe. However, it doesn't disclose potential performance or authorization details.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single, informative sentence with no extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core action and scope.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and key resource types. Lacks detail on output format but format parameter is documented.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the property descriptions in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'Full resource usage for one build' and lists specific resource types. It distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'one build' but does not explicitly differentiate.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use for a single build resource report, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings or when not to use. No alternatives mentioned.

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

• gowin_list_buildsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return fields and sort order but omits side-effect information (e.g., is it read-only?), permissions, or error behavior. Basic behavioral details present but not comprehensive.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, no redundancies. Front-loaded with key verb and resource. Every word adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, return fields, and sorting. Lacks only minor context like file system access limits or performance hints.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., 'root' is directory, 'maxDepth' default). Baseline 3 appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states verb ('Find'), resource ('Gowin EDA builds'), and scope ('under a directory tree'). It specifies return fields (project name, device, build time) and sort order (newest first). Unlike sibling tools, it uniquely identifies its function.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Description implies usage for listing builds in a directory but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings (gowin_summary, etc.). No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions.

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

• gowin_timingA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It lists outputs but doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions, or limitations. It mentions 'worst paths' but lacks detail on what constitutes 'worst'.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence that efficiently front-loads key outputs (fMax, slack, worst paths). No unnecessary words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema exists, and the description lists output types but doesn't detail structure. For a tool with moderate complexity, it is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning whether results are per-clock or overall.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool provides timing details for a single build, listing specific metrics like fMax, total negative slack, and worst paths. It distinguishes from siblings like gowin_summary and gowin_resources.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies this tool is for one build but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like gowin_summary or gowin_compare. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• gowin_checkA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description explains the return value: timing violations with paths, and empty meaning timing closed. It could be more explicit about error handling or invalid paths, but it covers the core behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Extremely concise with two sentences; front-loaded with the purpose ('Pass/fail gate'), no redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  While it explains the return value, it lacks context on what constitutes a timing violation, error conditions, or how the gate's output integrates with the build flow. No output schema or annotations to supplement.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'path to the build' and 'output format', so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it's a pass/fail gate that returns timing violations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gowin_summary, gowin_resources, and gowin_compare by focusing solely on timing closure.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use for timing closure checks but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like gowin_timing, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites.

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

• gowin_compareA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes outputs but doesn't explicitly state the tool is read-only or disclose any side effects. Typical diff behavior is assumed, but not guaranteed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and specific outputs, followed by usage advice.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description adequately covers purpose and usage for a diff tool. Without an output schema, it hints at output contents but could be more detailed about return format or limitations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the format parameter's default and compactness, and implies 'before' and 'after' are build paths. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool compares two builds, listing specific outputs (resource deltas, fMax change, violations). It distinguishes from siblings like gowin_resources (single build) and gowin_timing (single build) by focusing on diffs.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'Use this to see what a change actually cost' gives clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling names imply when to use other tools.

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

• gowin_summaryA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only report (no destructive actions), but does not explicitly state that it is safe or has no side effects. The lack of annotation makes this adequate but not excellent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key output contents, making it highly efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully informs about the return value (device, resource usage, fMax, timing violations). No gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by noting that the 'text' format is 'far more compact.' The path parameter's description is adequate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states 'Headline report for one build: device, resource usage, fMax per clock, and every timing violation.' and instructs 'Start here.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gowin_resources and gowin_timing, which focus on specific aspects.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description says 'Start here,' implying it should be used first for an overview before diving into specific details. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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