Verify if the design is ready for bitstream generation by checking routed state, timing slack, and blocking diagnostics.
Gate bitstream generation on routed state, timing slack, and blocking diagnostics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| error_code | Yes | ||
| state_changed | Yes | ||
| recommended_actions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it can block/fail, whether it runs diagnostics itself, or what side effects it may have. 'Blocking diagnostics' is mentioned but not clarified, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key criteria. Every phrase (routed state, timing slack, blocking diagnostics) adds meaning without padding.
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?
The description gives the essential gating purpose and conditions, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, with no annotations and no explicit prerequisite or usage timing, the agent must infer when exactly to invoke it and what happens when checks fail. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately ignores parameter details.
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 uses a specific gating concept ('Gate bitstream generation') and names three concrete criteria: routed state, timing slack, and blocking diagnostics. This distinguishes it broadly from generate_bitstream and diagnose_run, though the exact action ('check' vs 'enforce') is slightly implied rather than stated.
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 phrase 'Gate bitstream generation' clearly implies the tool should be used before generate_bitstream, but there is no explicit instruction on when to call it, what prerequisites exist (e.g., after run_implementation), or how it differs from diagnose_run and inspect_run. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.