烧录板载 SPI Flash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful safety-relevant behavior: the operation is persistent and destructive, it is gated by confirm=true, and it internally scans and verifies expectIdcode before writing. This goes well beyond the schema for a dangerous flash-write tool. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g., what happens on IDCODE mismatch) or overwrite/erase specifics, but the critical safety profile is disclosed.

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 compact sentence front-loads the mechanism and persistence trait, then immediately delivers the danger warning and the two safety requirements. Every word earns its place; no filler, no repetition of schema content.

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 10-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most critical contextual elements: mechanism, persistence, danger, the confirmation gate, and internal IDCODE verification. Minor gaps remain (no return/result info, no failure-mode behavior, no prerequisites like JTAG connection state), but the schema documents all parameters at 100% and the safety-critical workflow is described.

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, but the description adds behavioral meaning to two key parameters beyond the schema: confirm must literally be true (enforcement gate) and expectIdcode is checked internally via a scan step. This is useful nuance that reinforces how those parameters behave at runtime, not just what they are.

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 states a specific verb (持久烧录/persistently burn) plus the resource (板载 SPI Flash) and the mechanism (FPGA JTAG->SPI bridge). The word 持久 (persistent) distinguishes it from volatile alternatives like fpga_flash_sram, and the mechanism distinguishes it from fpga_jtag_flash. Purpose is unambiguous and differentiates well from siblings.

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 implied through 持久烧录 (persistent flashing, implying it is for final/production writes rather than volatile) and 危险动作 (dangerous, implying caution is required). However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it — e.g., it doesn't say 'for volatile/debug use fpga_flash_sram' or contrast with fpga_jtag_flash. No exclusions are provided.

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