烧录 FPGA SRAM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that this is a dangerous action, that confirm=true is mandatory, and that the tool internally scans and verifies expectIdcode before burning. This is meaningful safety-relevant context, though it does not describe what happens on IDCODE mismatch or after successful programming.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the critical safety constraint follows immediately. Every word contributes necessary information.

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 dangerous mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits when to prefer this over fpga_flash_spi, what happens if the expectIdcode check fails, power-cycle volatility implications, and what a successful result looks like. The rich parameter schema does not compensate for missing operational and failure context.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds behavioral meaning to parameters beyond schema text: confirm is framed as a required safety gate, and expectIdcode is tied to the internal scan-and-verify behavior. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 action ('烧 .sbit') and a specific resource ('FPGA SRAM'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like fpga_flash_spi, which targets SPI flash. The verb and resource are concrete enough for an agent to understand the core operation without opening the schema.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives such as fpga_flash_spi for persistent storage. It warns that the action is dangerous and requires confirm=true, but this is a safety requirement, not a selection rule between tools.

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