Synthesis and PnR warnings

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: diagnostics are grouped by code, common codes get a hint, and the tool cross-reads the timing report to flag clocks missing a constraint. It does not describe pagination or output size limits, but for an annotated read tool this is useful added context.

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?

Two tight sentences that lead with the core extraction behavior and then the special TA1132 cross-check. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and the most distinctive behavior is front-loaded.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description must sketch the return shape, and it does: results grouped by diagnostic code with hints, plus the extra missing-constraint clock list. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about the text vs json payload and grouping limits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter (code, name, path, level, stage, format, maxGroups) including defaults and enums. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it extracts WARN/ERROR lines from the synthesis (impl/gwsynthesis/<name>.log) and PnR (impl/pnr/<name>.log) logs, grouped by diagnostic code. That is far more specific than a generic 'get warnings', but it never names or contrasts a sibling tool (e.g. gowin_summary or gowin_timing), so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose and by the mention of cross-checking TA1132 against the timing report. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus gowin_summary, gowin_timing, or gowin_check, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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