Produce FPGA bitstream only after timing and diagnostic checks pass. Uses parallel jobs for efficient implementation.
Launch bitstream generation only when timing and diagnostic gates pass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | No |
| 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?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals one meaningful behavioral trait—that the tool is gated by timing and diagnostic results and should not be launched before they pass—but stays silent on duration, blocking behavior, failure modes, and side effects of a generation run.
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 12-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Launch bitstream generation') and folds the precondition into a dependent clause. No filler, no repetition, every word 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?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the central precondition, but it never connects the gates to the sibling workflow (check_build_readiness / diagnose_run) or explains what a launch entails (e.g., long-running FPGA build). An agent can attempt the call, but must infer the surrounding flow.
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 0%, so the description was expected to compensate for the single 'jobs' parameter, and it never mentions it. The schema's title 'Jobs' and default of 4 provide minimal meaning, but the description adds nothing beyond what the structured schema already exposes.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Launch') with a specific resource ('bitstream generation'), and the gating phrase positions it as the terminal build step. This distinguishes it cleanly from the earlier run_synthesis / run_implementation stages and from the diagnostic inspect/diagnose siblings, so an agent can tell this is the final generate step in the flow.
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?
'Only when timing and diagnostic gates pass' gives an explicit precondition for when to call the tool and implicitly forbids calling it before the gates pass. However, it never names the alternatives the agent should consult first (check_build_readiness, diagnose_run, inspect_run), so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.