gowin_list_builds

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.