PDS bin 工具直通 (受护栏)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context: only listed tools are in scope, output is extracted and returned, and -help/-version probing is possible. However, it never explains what the claimed 'guardrail' enforces, potential side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, so the disclosure is incomplete.

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 dense but purposeful sentences cover the action, the allowlist, the exclusion set, and the routing alternatives. No filler or repetition of schema content; the key constraints are 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?

For a generic executable passthrough with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives enough selection guidance but not enough execution detail. It omits the return format, error handling, guardrail specifics, and any prerequisites, leaving an agent to discover these at runtime.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the tool description's tool list is already reflected in the exe parameter description. The only extra parameter-relevant guidance is the -help/-version probing tip, which is operational rather than semantic.

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 operation—executing build/analysis PDS bin tools (with an explicit allowlist) and returning extracted output—and explicitly excludes device/JTAG and GUI tools. This makes it easy to tell apart from fpga_cdt and fpga_pds_run without inspecting schemas.

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?

It states when to use the tool (build/analysis bin tools), when not to (device/JTAG and GUI tools), and names the correct alternatives (fpga_cdt, fpga_pds_run). It also gives the actionable hint to probe any bin exe with -help/-version.

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