gowin_check

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.