FPGA 环境探测

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the probing scope, the local vs remote SSH behavior, and the kinds of information reported. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe failure/error behavior, but '报告' and '探测' strongly imply a non-mutating reconnaissance operation.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the tool's purpose, and packs the essential behavioral distinctions (local vs remote, same probing logic) without redundancy. Every clause adds information; no filler.

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 an environment probe with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, execution mode, and the full set of reported items. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could optionally mention SSH prerequisites or the absence of side effects.

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 schema already documents host as a remote device id from pango-mcp.config.json, and description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that omitting host means local, while providing host triggers SSH-based probing of the remote execution-device layer with identical logic.

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 verb ('报告'/report) and a concrete resource (FPGA workflow environment), enumerating exactly what is probed: iverilog/vvp, verilator, gcc, node/pnpm, PDS/cdt paths, license availability, and MCP server instance ownership. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the flow-oriented siblings by positioning it as an environment discovery/probe tool.

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 gives clear usage context: default is local probing, and passing a host switches to SSH-based probing of a remote execution-device layer with the same logic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the local/remote usage rule is concrete and actionable.

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